Where Do Idealists Get Jobs?

This is not a question regarding the current job market in the United States. There are several careers I can think of that require a certain idealism in order to choose them. Teaching, medicine (nursing in particular,) law enforcement, possibly political office. I know people in all of these careers, and after a certain number of years, each of them seem to lose at least some of the idealism, the desire to help others, that drew them to their career choices. There are others, myself included, who are generally idealistic, and try to always see the best in people, who just wind up having 'jobs' because there is no place for us to fit in with our idealistic natures.

In a conversation with a young friend, whose younger brother just graduated from high school, she told me that he is pursuing a degree in education, and that he hopes to teach in the inner city. He's done some volunteer work in that arena in Los Angeles, CA, and he absolutely loved it. I wonder where he will be twenty years from now, when he has seen just how many of those inner city children he will be able to 'save,' and how he will be the one blamed for their failures? The discussions being held in this country lately over what is wrong with our educational system, and why are children lag behind, is very telling. It seems that everyone, particularly legislators, want to blame teachers and teachers unions for our failures. Occasionally the home life, and participation of the parents is mentioned, but no one brings up the culture we live in. Who are the media heroes? Does our culture celebrate learning? Are the students who are motivated to learn encouraged and nurtured, or are they bullied by fellow students, and ignored by over-burdened teachers who must spend more time trying to keep peace from students with behavior or learning difficulties in their overcrowded classrooms? When they go home, are their heads filled with unchallenging programming on television and iPads? How any teacher can keep his or her ideals alive for an entire career would be beyond anyone's logic.

I'm close to some police officers and others who work for the police in civilian roles. It takes very little time for them to begin to see everyone they meet as suspicious. They spend their days immersed in the worst of what our society brings, and it colors their perceptions. Police officers take a pledge to "serve and protect," which takes a certain ideal of making a difference in society by removing crime so that the law abiding citizen can live freely. But their administrators are sometimes corrupt, they must become friendly and look the other way for some smaller crimes in order to get information on larger crimes, sometimes the people they've pledged to protect dislike them because THEY know someone who has been arrested, and on and on. Police officers traditionally hate the departments appointed to investigate crimes committed within their own ranks. Why? Because sometimes, after seeing how many criminals get away with it, and become rich doing it, and looking at how little they make for the amount of risk involved in their jobs, some policemen become corrupt, and rationalize doing so. Therefore they take the position that they should not be prosecuted if they 'take a little' off the top. How can one keep their idealism in such an unappreciated job. The corruption of the New York City police at the turn of the 20th century was a well known "wink, wink" fact. Police were typically paid for protection by organized criminals on a regular basis. But the city paid them almost nothing, and they were still expected, exactly as today, to put their lives on the line for the people. While police corruption can never be condoned, there were those who understood why police officers would be tempted to take bribes to supplement their paltry incomes.

One place one should be able to believe they can make a difference in the world around them is in politics. There was a time when I thought this would be my place to make a difference. But I have yet to see a single person in politics get elected and not soon be overcome by the amount of money it takes to win, which cannot come from "the people," because the people just don't have enough of it. Barak Obama probably came closer than anyone else during his 2008 election by taking so many very small donations from people online. But even he has taken money from corporations, and proven that the big donors, not the small ones, have more power over what is legislated. An example of this would be the deal he gave to the giant pharmaceutical companies before he even started negotiating his health care reform act. Politics is ugly-it always has been. I've seen some ads that were printed during campaigns in this country during the seventeenth century, and they were even worse than now in the names they called each other. At least now the mud is slung in real time-back then it took days for the ads to go out, and longer for them to be responded to, by which time the damage was often done. Newspapers were owned by business owners, not by idealistic journalists; they could say pretty much whatever they wanted without any challenge from other media sources, or "factcheck.org." So it isn't worse now with regard to mudslinging, but it is WAY worse with regard to the money involved. There will be no way to fix it as long as candidates have to raise more and more money to run for office, and as long as they owe favors to the ones who give them the big bucks.

Helping people by providing medical care ought to be a no-brainer. But after dealing with patients who are demanding when not really sick, patients who come to the doctor to feed addictions, insurance companies who stop real health care delivery, it is easy to see how the nurses and doctors in my orbit all over the country could develop a cynicism about the careers they chose in order to heal. Some of the stories I hear from friends who do home health care just rip at my gut. Some of the behavior of families I've seen who have very sick, disabled family members, does the same thing. I wonder sometimes when we stopped caring about our fellow man, and even more about our families.

In a previous blog I talked about how important a free press was to the learned gentlemen who wrote our constitution. But now the journalists are celebrities themselves,  and they party with the very government whose overreach the framers wanted them to protect us from. This is not true in every case-I have some journalistic heroes who put their lives in great danger to expose corruption at every level. But more and more, the people who report on the legislative class go to the same parties, travel in the same circles, and water down their stories and soft-ball questions to these people because they are 'buddies.' This makes idealism even harder because it diminishes the trust the people have in what they are hearing from the press. It also makes people who have, or might have, become journalists in order to expose corruption in our government, question that decision. I was in journalism school for a time, and when I saw the attitudes of some of the old-school newspaper men, I was disgusted. Even the word disgusted seems inadequate since one of those old newspapermen who had won a Pulitzer Prize for a series he wrote in the Washington Post, looked me in the eye and claimed that the fact that Sally Quinn and her husband, Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, hosted some of the most famous parties in Washington, meant nothing when it came to reporting on these people. Really? Where were they before we invaded Iraq in 2003? Why did they wait nearly six years to expose the outing of Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband opposing the invasion? The New York Times complicity with the invasion of Iraq is well known, but other papers, if they were following the ideals that framed the beginnings of the American free press were being followed.

I suppose the last area in which idealists should be able to work would be the non-profit sector. I have worked in two non-profits in my life. One was a children's home, in which the administration was so corrupt and dishonest that I quickly felt my idealism drain from me every time I faced one of them. The other was a food bank, that was run by some very odd characters for whom their mission seemed almost secondary. There was one person there who reinforced my ideals, and stayed sold on the mission no matter what. But she was only 20% of the entire staff. I hope she is still there, doing good.

My problem is that I hurt when my ideals are violated. I believe in the interwovenness of every living creature. I still have a, perhaps jaded, view of the 1960s, and wish that the hippies who were preaching peace and tolerance and equality hadn't gone on to become investment bankers and right-wing conservatives. Someone I work with recently quoted the old joke to me, "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are older, you have no brain." I told him I didn't find that at all funny, especially since my growth has been in the opposite direction. (...I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Bob Dylan.)  I still have hope that people can change, and begin to care about each other. I don't see it happening in my lifetime. There are too many people who think the old way is better because that's the way things have always been done. I would like to ask them about certain things that were done in the past-slavery, driving native Americans off their lands, or poisoning them with illness, conquering civilizations that were already advanced beyond the conquerors, etc. Should those things come back just because it is good to hold on to the way things were done in the past? I think not. But where can an idealist go to work, and have ideals intact upon retirement? 

Demagogue Is Not a Verb

This has been a busy summer in every area of interest to me. Politics, music, my family life, religion, food...all of these things leading to question after question. So, if anyone has answers, I'm open. If not, well, I'm used to it.

1. There are so many things we can hate politicians for, and what they are trying to do to our education system is one of them. But could we PLEASE get over the fact that governors and presidents and congress people send their children to private schools? Can you IMAGINE how disruptive it would be for the children of state or national leaders to be in public schools? Really, let this one go. Focus on the other crap they are doing to us daily.

2. I love dill pickles. Recently I had one of those giant ones you can buy at the convenience store in the single serving plastic wrap full of pickle juice. Also being a long-time label reader, I made the mistake of turning the package around and reading this one. Did you know it does not contain one shred of dill? It also says on the nutritional information that it contains NO FIBER! Are pickles not simply cucumbers "pickled in brine?" Since when do vegetables not contain fiber?

3. Why does anyone mow in the dead of summer? During a severe drought no less? It's hard work that often leads to health problems for the out-of-shape. The machines most people use contribute a great many nasty emissions, and watering the grass just to keep it green in summer uses a great deal of a precious resource that we will one day not have enough of that is usable for the consumption of our exploding population. So, if we get rain, be happy, your grass will be green. If we don't, you save the air, water, reduce medical costs-everybody wins!

4. When did small business owners become millionaires and billionaires? I keep hearing the republicans talk about increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires is raising taxes on "small businesses and job creators." What is the connection? The billionaires are the owners of really big businesses, and do not seem to be the target of any suggested new tax rates.

5. Speaking of the possibility of new tax rates; I think the top tax rate is either 35 or 39%. But you know what, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is if there are so many loopholes and the richest people and largest corporations pay none or very little.

6. This all brings up another question: The right keeps talking about how we have the "highest corporate tax rate in the world." So-which of these other countries would our republican brethren like to imitate? If the US is the best country ever made, and our people are the best and brightest, most fabulous people anywhere, which country would they like us to be like? Do they realize that most of those other countries also have completely different priorities for how their tax revenues are spent-some even including (HORRORS, GASP) health care for everyone? So-France? How about France? Italy? Germany? Pick one, Speaker Boehner. But remember, there is always a package that goes with such things, and if you don't like the package, don't try to imitate one little piece.

7. Do the anti-government right-wingers realize that people who hate the government and wish to dismantle it are called "anarchists?" Anarchists used to be considered left wing. Does anyone but me see the irony in that? Anarchy in the USA!! Brought to you by Sarah Palin.

8. Who are the people who have been unemployed for over two years? Are they from any particular sector of jobs? If it is the over-fifty crowd, infrastructure jobs might not really help. But we need to rebuild our infrastructure, no question. We need high-speed rail nationwide. We need to reorganize our cities to accommodate mass transit. But I am deeply concerned about the middle aged workers who have been unemployed for so long. Where can they go? I'm not sure that building highways and filling pot holes in roads are jobs that they can do.

9. What is the evolutionary purpose of women's attraction to shiny objects and adorning ourselves? It seems that every woman I know is drawn to jewelry and shoes. On the one hand, I can see that the adornment thing may be in order to attract a mate. But I don't know many men who say they ever notice a woman's shoes. But some women I know who never, ever wear makeup still love shoes. And if attracting a mate is the reason for attaching shiny objects to our ears, fingers, wrists and necks, why do middle-aged women still have this desire? We aren't looking for mates. We may just be hoping the ones we have don't last much longer. We can't reproduce anymore, so how does this characteristic help us pass on our genes?

10. Who is the governor of Alaska now?

11. When they were young, what did Pat Sajak and Vanna White want to be. Surely not the hosts of a stupid game show for the rest of their lives.

12. I watch Morning Joe most every morning. It is often just background noise while I get ready for work. But do the producers really think no one notices when they re-run first hour? They do it regularly, and I'm not sure why.

13. I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter series. I've read every book, and seen every movie. I've semi-followed the growing up of the three main stars. Last week I saw a story about Emma Watson, who has played Hermione since she was ten-years old. She came to the US to attend Brown University for a time, but it didn't work out. Anyway, the story last week said that Ms. Watson is going to study "abroad." At Cambridge. She's a Brit-how is Cambridge "abroad" for her?

14. Lastly for now, I have a question about the whole Rupert Murdoch British press tabloid scandal. The stories have to do with the management of these papers being invited to all the best parties, hobnobbing with politicians and the wealthy and famous. They then used these relationships to make big, splashy, ugly headlines. Well, hoodathunk? I've said for years that it makes me uncomfortable to see American journalists invited to these parties with the Washington elite-or any elite. But it continues. So why should anyone be surprised that the integrity of the press might be compromised by inside access?

I Know it When I See It

Thomas Jefferson was really big on a free press. So much so that freedom of the press is a part of the very FIRST amendment to the United States Constitution. According to one of my old journalism teachers, journalism is the only career that is protected in the constitution. He wrote about it often in other writings. He said, "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will." He had a purpose in mind for that free press-the so called "fourth estate." The title "the fourth estate" was first used in Europe, also in the 18th century. It was said that each branch of government has three estates (in the U.S. those would be legislative, judicial and executive.) But the press, even there, was the "fourth estate," because it was also there to protect the people. Back to Jefferson-he also said that, "The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being." My, how far we have come. And how quickly. Even before he died, Jefferson also said, "The most truthful part of a newspaper is in the advertisements." This is pretty much where the hill started tilting downward for us as a nation. There are some journalists, and journals, who still take their responsibility seriously as the eyes of the people on the government. I'm a big fan of Jeremy Scahill, for example, who wrote a book exposing the use of Blackwater in the war in Iraq. But for the most part today, the press that is most often viewed by the American public has become nothing more than a large collective of pornographers. I think the fun they've had with the Anthony Weiner photo scandal is absolute proof. The other men who have recently misbehaved in a sexual way have not had the wall-to-wall coverage that this one has. It is amusing to me to watch the smug looks on their faces as they play word-games with the fact that Anthony Weiner's name is the same as a slang term for a man's penis. I have not, in fact, heard the word "penis" quoted on commercial or cable news so much in my life. What possible "redeeming social value" does this have? Why couldn't John Ensign, Mark Sanford or David Vitter have had such salacious surnames? I rest my case.

That's a pretty harsh statement, right? Well, show me a recent example of the mainstream media doing their business as designed-exposing corruption in the government, or enlightening the American public. I'm open. Please-show me! In the 1957 Supreme Court decision Roth vs United States, the court defined obscenity as, "the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole...appeals to the prurient interest, which is utterly without redeeming social importance." This is how I see a great deal of what is purported to be "news" in our country today. Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Anthony Weiner, and, yes, Sarah Palin, contribute nothing of value to our national discourse-except perhaps during the initial "this is what happened today," phase. And even during that phase, there is much of what is deemed news that I, and many people I talk to, wonder if it "enlightens" the public in any way. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, "I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so {defining obscenity} but I know it when I see it." This is where the subject becomes Sarah Palin.

I made a comment last week that I believe her to be a loathsome human being. A friend asked me why I thought that she is any worse than "any publicity seeking" person. And there are many reasons. Perhaps "loathsome" is not fair, but I do not share her "family values," her desire to have absolutely everything only on her own terms, and I do not believe that she has contributed one single positive line to the discussion of what ails us as a country. Here is why:

1. Sarah Palin LOVES the media. She Tweets, she Facebooks, she contributes something to Fox news, but she blames the media for every possible bad thing that has ever happened in her life. Every question is a so-called "gotcha" question. When she recently gave a rambling, incoherent answer about Paul Revere's ride, the "gotcha" question was, "What have you got from your trip, and what are you taking away with you?" She called that a "gotcha" question when she was called on her particular spin on the Paul Revere story. Gotcha!!! Every single person who runs for office is asked what they read, watch or listen to. People like knowing such things. I recently saw an interview with Mitt Romney in which he was asked what was on his iPod. He wasn't bothered by it-and he answered the question. We know a little more about him as a result. But when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers she reads, she got rattled and said, "Oh, all of them." And then accused Ms. Couric of asking "gotcha" questions. Her response shows that it was indeed a gotcha, because it should have enlightened the public about how well Ms. Palin thinks on her feet.

2. She uses her children as props, but wants the press to pretend they aren't there. During her recent bus trip around some U.S.historical sites, her daughter Piper said to the media, "Thanks for ruining our vacation." If I were the therapist who will most assuredly be counseling Piper twenty years from now, I would love to say to her, "Look, Darling, if it were just a family vacation, it would not be paid for by your mother's pac, nor would it be in a bus decorated to call attention to your family." A bus with Sarah's autograph on it, with a rendering of the preamble to the constitution, and an American flag on the side, this was not an anonymous family vacation. But Sarah wouldn't have the balls to say to Piper, "Piper, honey, we need a free press to keep us free from oppressive government." Or, "Sweetie, I want the press here. That's why I painted the bus that way." I won't even bring up Bristol's pregnancy, and how Ms. Palin stroked the family on stage when she got the nomination for vice president in 2008. A family is not a stage prop, brought along to polish an image. And if a mom marches the family in front of the public that way, they do become fair game. This is another thing I was taught in journalism school-public figures are "fair game." If Mama Grizzly doesn't want the kids to be fair game, she shouldn't use them as props.

3. She uses pac money for personal vacations. Or does she use personal vacations for campaigning? If it is the first, which, according to Piper it was, then it is illegal. Ask Christine O'Donnell. Using political contributions to pay for your personal living expenses is against the law. So, is she being dishonest about her purpose, or did she use the money in an illegal way.

4. She is completely dishonest about American history. According to her interpretation of Paul Revere's ride, for example, Revere rode, not to warn the colonists that the British were coming, but to tell the British that they couldn't take our guns. The second amendment to the constitution wasn't even written until twelve years later.

5. She contributes nothing to the national debate. She throws out red herrings, applause lines and extreme right-wing talking points, but she has not voiced an original idea since she entered the national consciousness.

6. When her "gaffes" are pointed out, she never, ever, ever admits that she was wrong. It's okay to say you were wrong. It doesn't mean you are weak. At least I hope not, since I am frequently wrong, and I admit it regularly. I was always taught that showing some humility, and admitting it when you are wrong is a sign of maturity. People are more likely to forgive a mistake if it is admitted. But when someone insists that they were not wrong, forgiveness and admiration of one's humility cannot take place. Ask George W. Bush. It was one of the things he was often criticized for. Some people are still talking about his comment that his biggest regret in life was "trading Sammy Sosa." Really? A guy who over-drank, used cocaine, sent us to war over WMD that did not exist? When Ms. Palin first came into the national spotlight, I compared her to a female George W. Bush. I'm completely afraid now that she would be way worse.

Speaking of being willing to admit being wrong, I think "loathsome" might have been a bad word choice. Based upon the emails that were released this weekend, Ms. Palin did (apparently) have potential as a national candidate. However, over and over again she has shown an inability to answer questions on the fly,  or think on her feet. What about that 3:00 A.M. phone call-the one on the red phone? Once her fame occurred, once she realized that no matter how silly it appears on the surface, the press will follow her like starving dogs, she lost her bearings. Her fame, new wealth, and rock star status went to her head, and because of her inability to process all that attention reasonably, she has done nothing but stumble. So while she may not be a loathsome human being, she may really be a victim of "new money" syndrome, she has shown that without doubt she would be a loathsome elected official. She has become a publicity whore, but one who wants to control a narrative that is not controllable. And the reason for that is because the press, according to the definitions given at the beginning of  this essay, the press are her pornographers. 

A Picture is Worth.....

During the war in Viet Nam we saw this:

and this:

and this:

It lead to this:

And this:

We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly ten years because they were the garden in which the plot to attack the United States on September 11, 2011 was germinated. But we don't have the protests going on. The Bush administration kept the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq off the books, so every penny spent is adding to our deficit while we pretend that it isn't costing us a thing. The lives of our soldiers and Afghan civilians are being wasted by traditional warfare-terrorists don't operate on a traditional field of battle. Not to mention that we have been told repeatedly that the terrorists who attacked us are now in Pakistan.

During this time we've seen this:

                                                                     And this:

 ...and many more disturbing pictures. Battle wounds that would have killed soldiers forty years ago do not now, so we have people surviving multiple limb losses, and traumatic brain injury. We've seen mercenaries hired by the US government kill multiple civilians, and giant corporations with ties to higher ups in our government make obscene amounts of money while doing shoddy work that has put our soldiers in danger. The same scandal occurred with the care being given in our military hospitals. The number of soldiers who have come home only to commit suicide or wind up homeless because care for mental wounds is even harder to come by is staggering. So, why aren't we angry? Is it really because we don't have a draft? We don't need do this:

Is it because we are too busy doing this:

And This:

Or this:

Or This:

Or This:

People, we can't continue to be so fat and lazy that we just won't bother to:

Yes-there will always be more questions!

1. Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's silly that in weight loss product commercials, the "before" photo is always wearing the same red bikini? If I lost that much weight by popping one of those pills or drinking one of those teas, I'd be wearing the red bikini in the after picture, but a one piece skirt before!

2. Speaking of commercials-does anyone really believe that if you don't call in the "next fifteen minutes," you won't get the great deal? Or why the "shipping and processing fee" is more than the product would be worth if one bought it retail?

3. Why is iced coffee so hard to make at home? Not that it can't be done, but it just doesn't come close to Thai Iced Coffee from a coffee shop.

4. When people consistently claim to wish political candidates would "focus on the issues," why do so many vote on anything but? It always seems that red-herrings, lies and high drama fuel elections.

5. Eric Rudolph, Fred Phelps, Ralph Ovadal, Ralph Reed, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Darrell Issa, ...I know that there are women  involved in the anti-choice movement. But the ones who are most strident or who become violent are white men. The statistics that I read say that most Americans are pro choice, but anti abortion. I've been told that the two positions are mutually exclusive, but I disagree. It is possible to be against abortion, but to realize that the real choice belongs to individuals, not to the government. Is it possible (playing devil's advocate here) that this is the result of the women's movement, and white men not understanding their place in the new world? The old jokes had to do with keeping women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Now a woman can use birth control, and go to work and by her own shoes. Many have decided to be single parents, and DO include the child's father in the child's life. But some people just can't adjust to a changing world and changing roles. So they become frustrated, and eventually snap into violence-if a woman can have an abortion, he can't keep her "barefoot and pregnant." Reproductive choice is the minimum of a woman's right to determine her own destiny. This is why educated women in third world countries, who have access to birth control, have fewer children. Historically, women were forced into marriages for the economic strength of their parents, and if they didn't produce male children, they could be discarded by their husband. Women had no rights, and whom to marry and having children were among the major things proving the second class status of women. Yes, I know this is an emotionally charged issue, and there has been little movement in changing some minds since Roe v Wade. But the fact is, it has been law for over thirty years. Our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says he will not violate legal precedent. It is time that we all move on. Yes, there are still people who think the country screwed up when it was decided that schools should be integrated, but for the most part, we have moved on. It's time to do that here. It is almost a full generation that have had the right for a safe, medical abortion. Let the next generation wonder why the bombers and shooters who plot to murder physicians and medical providers were not classified as the domestic terrorists that they are. If we do hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are, indeed, created equal. Lets stop the several states that have decided to make it harder for a woman to make her own choice regarding this basic right from taking it out of the hands of women and their doctors and placing it in the hands of a bunch of middle-aged white guys who needs to acknowledge that women are people too.

Some More Questions, and MAYBE An Answer

If you don't have to weigh it, how do you know it's under 70 pounds?

I was at WalMart waiting for a prescription a few weeks ago, and noticed a sign on the wall. The sign said, "We are required by law to ask for identification when dispensing any controlled substance. We apologize for any inconvenience." Now, shopping at WalMart is, in every instance, a soul-crushing experience. The store is always hot, looking for a decent bunch of bananas is an adventure not unlike an Amazon River safari, the ratio of cashiers to customers is 1 to 473, and the pharmacy has a sign up apologizing for "inconveniencing" customers to show ID when taking home prescriptions of a controlled substance? Why?

Why is it that when walking on a trail, walkers are the friendliest, runners come in a distant second, and the least likely to be friendly to others on the trail are people on bicycles? 

Why does a smoothie from McDonald's have 54 grams of sugar? I thought I was doing the "healthier" thing by grabbing a smoothie made with yogurt and fruit. Should I just get an Egg McMuffin and be done with it when I run late and need to grab a bite for breakfast?

One of the best selling books of all times is "What to Expect When You're Expecting," and the series of parental guides it spawned. People who have children try to learn something about parenting; why don't people who have dogs? Dogs are our best friends-truly. But they are also descended from animals that can do great harm, and some bite. We have a neighbor whose dogs are so aggressive that last Sunday as I walked my dog past his window, his dogs were trying so hard to get through the glass to get my dog that the next sound I heard was glass shattering. There was a beautiful dog on the trail last week; possibly a St. Bernard mix. The gentleman owned by the dog was taking a breather on a bench, and as we approached, his dog began to lunge and bark ferociously. He told me that the dog was not dog-friendly; I just walked by and said, "Shame" If we will have our best friends around other best friends, they should be socialized. It's not hard in most cases, some breeds take a little more work. But it matters. 

I've asked this before, but why do conservatives believe there is only one amendment to the constitution, and it is the second amendment? I'm asking again because of a case in Florida that was discussed this week amongst some friends regarding a new law prohibiting pediatricians from discussing child-proofing guns in the home with the parents of their patients. While some agreed that the new law was problematic because of the first amendment, which says the government can't tell anyone what they can or can't say, they also said the conversation didn't belong in a doctor's office. Really? Does that apply to advising parents how to child proof their household cleaners with toddlers around? "Who knew my baby could get into the cabinet and drink the Drano?" "How could I know my child knew how to get into my bedside drawer and get my loaded gun?" Some parents are so blissfully ignorant, even the ones who have read the book described above, that the idea of removing a gun from harms way for their toddlers may not ever occur to them. If a child gets hold of a loaded gun and does him or herself some harm, or harms a playmate, that doctor would be called upon to undo the damage-IF the child survives. That negligent parent would then be arrested for child endangerment. What's wrong with preventive care? Aren't we supposed to be FOR trying to use common sense and create healthier lives for ourselves and our children? No one is saying to take the gun out of the home-just child proof the home so children don't have access to loaded guns. I'm pretty sure no one in a red state like Florida would DARE suggest getting rid of the gun altogether.

My dog-loving friends and I have had many conversations about scent-rolling, and some of the noxious smells our dogs come away with. One day I was on the way home with my dog after she had done that, and I thought I was passing an apartment in which someone had died, and it turned out she had scent rolled in something that smelled beyond horrible. I had to wash her three times, with Dawn detergent, to get the smell off. The funny thing was the smug look on her face as she wore the scent, and the extreme sadness on her as I took it away. I used to think it was something about wearing the smells of a higher ranking dog. But this past Sunday, I got another idea. Walking on a trail that we very much enjoy, we came upon the body of a dead squirrel. Her eyes glazed over, literally, and she dropped to the body to roll in it, and I shouted her out of her stupor before she could wear that maggoty smell home in the car with me. But I thought of all the times during the same walk that she saw a live squirrel and she took off like the 'great, white hunter,' to the end of her leash, and then sniffed the ground where the squirrel had been. What I realized was that perhaps her vestigial hunting instinct took over, and she wanted to scent roll in the odor of her prey-as a disguise! If she smelled like a squirrel, perhaps she could sneak up on one without them running up a tree! Human hunters do it all the time-rubbing ointment on their bodies so that they don't scare off deer; did we learn that from dogs 12,000 years ago? I don't know if my new theory is right or not, but I'll still hit the Dawn the next time she comes home smelling like that. 

We Trudge On

I don't guess we can ever know what will happen on a given day to create an attitude of reflection. There were several things for me this week-weather, weddings of the century, conversations with friends, the suicide of a 19 year old second cousin. The thing is, when one is from a background like mine, from birth in a Southern Baptist home, it is hard to let go of the idea of God. Even though I never, ever felt very believing, and it took me years to say the word "atheist" out loud, I still struggle with how to define myself, my values, what I believe in. I always wonder, when my heart breaks for a friend who has suffered a loss, does it seem as valuable to them when I say, "My heart goes out to you," or "My thoughts are with you," as it would if I said, "I'm praying for you?"

There is no question that that my mother's use of God to explain the unexplainable, or shut down conversation about anything bigger, is part of the reason that I continue to struggle. I do believe that simplifying a complicated world is the reason for some to believe that everything on earth can be explained with a simple, "God did it." In conversations about evolution, it is often said by those who don't accept it that "The world couldn't have been created by accident because there is too much order and beauty in the world." There is indeed beauty. But there is also ugly and dangerous, and there is no order. Apart from the simplest level, there is only chaos and suffering. The only order still visible to me is that night follows day; moon cycles are twenty-eight days. Any deeper than that, and the order disappears. There are the seasons, but when was the last time that winter cold was followed by a spring warm up, then summer heat and a fall cool down? That order is gone, and the warmer the climate becomes, the more that order will be lost.

There are genetic diseases which cause great suffering for innocent children, there are complications of aging that make getting older hurt for some people. I'm aware of people only in their 60s and 70s who are bedridden, and have feeding tubes because of diseases of aging.  Believers quote the bible and say that God "visits the sins of the fathers to the seventh generation." What kind of loving god would do such a thing to an innocent baby? Genetic mutations happen, but are almost always harmful to an organism. It is by sheer accident that an organism ever benefits from a mutation, but it happens sometimes, unpredictably, and when it does it may improve the survival chances of that organisms offspring. How can a loving god that planned and created everything explain that away?

So, how is all this connected? I guess the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and all the hoopla over it in the US started me thinking. Some of my friends wanted to watch the wedding, to see the clothes and the whole fairy tale aspect of the event. I, who have been accused of taking some things too seriously, was angry about the whole thing. First of all, news organizations have been laying people off, they only print stories off the wires, and say they have no money to fund investigative reporters to root out government corruption, but they can send entire staffs to London for a full week to cover the wedding. As if that were not unconscionable enough, there were riots in the streets of Britain just a month or so ago because the economy has hit them so hard that they have enacted "austerity measures," which affect the lower classes of the British public. But the British people paid fifty-million pounds for this lavish wedding? My friends did convince me that it is okay to look at the positive side of the affair and find something happy in it-and there is that. No question, this young couple seems very much in love. But this happy affair is being talked about as the marriage that will save the monarchy. Who benefits from that? They have no political power, and they cost the British taxpayers an obscene amount of money every year. I've read the original versions of the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, and they aren't pretty. Neither is this wedding once you get past the facade.

It doesn't help that on the day of the wedding, I learned of the suicide of the youngest son of my cousin. She and I were born the same year, and during our teen years we had much in common. She'd had a tragic life-her father, my mother's brother, was killed in Viet Nam when we were 6. Her step father died when she was a young adolescent. She descended into drug abuse and promiscuity, and then was 'saved.' Our common religious beliefs at the time made us close, and I never shared with anyone my doubts. She met her first husband at a very famous fundamentalist college in the deep south. They were married a long time, but he was an abuser, and she finally left when he nearly let her die in a suspicious fire in their home. They had six children. The night before the  royal wedding, she found his body. When I called, she was under sedation, understandably. But another family member was able to talk to her, and she said "nothing but God will get me through this." I know all the answers of believers when the great "Why?" is asked. But it seems that instead of getting a mother through such an inestimable tragedy, "He" might have acted to prevent this event from happening to a woman who had devoted her entire life to Him. Maybe this is where I get off track; I think there should be an answer to the great "Why?"

I remember in the mid-1980s, when my professional and social life took me out of the sheltered circle of other white, southern baptist southern conservatives I'd grown up with. I worked with people from other countries, who practiced other religions like the "evil" Catholicism and Islam. And they loved their families, and worked hard to provide decent lives and education for them. I've not seen a single one of those people turn up on the news with bombs strapped to their chests. I became friends with these people, and when I had them to my home for dinner, we talked about religion and politics and movies-almost like "good Christian" people I grew up with. As a result of these relationships, and conversations about religion, I learned how similar our religions were, and I began to question the notion that there is only one right and true religion. And one night, I was at my youngest sister's home, and sharing all these new feelings I began to just sob because, "...if anything we were ever taught was true, "I'm going to hell now."

From there my evolution became complete to atheism, as I observed more and more of the behaviors described above, and studied to a degree with a minor in biology. Some in my family have never heard me say the "A-word;" some have, and one of them sent me an email this week saying, "I don't mean to be on a soapbox here, but don't give up on God, he hasn't given up on you." Now, I know that this person loves me, and that she is doing what she believes her "job" as a Christian is. But it is also someone who has never once asked me why my journey brought me here. I work hard to respect the views and beliefs of those I know who believe in anything, and it is exhausting and painful at times that I do not receive a modicum of respect in return for my beliefs. On some level, I know why she never asked me. She is a woman in her 60s who has never questioned what she was taught is the true and correct way to believe, she just accepted it. My mother is the same way. She not only never, even now, questions anything she was ever taught, she gets angry when questioned. Normally I would reply to that email  with an unemotional,  "Thank you." This time I didn't respond at all. I was emotionally drained and  honestly didn't know what to say.