Open Season on the Disabled...
Terri Schiavo has died this morning.
Her last few weeks sparked debate in this country on several subjects: the rights of the disabled, the courts, the partisan divide, living wills, euthanasia. In this regard, her death has not been in vain because these were all serious debates that needed to be had. What is so sad about this death, more than others, is the very public manner in which it took place. Terri is not the only person with brain damage or, as some doctors and commentators put it, "in a persistent, vegetative state" hovering on the brink of death this day. There are thousands of other Terri's out there and their continued care is now a going concern.
I do not pretend to know everything about the Schiavo case and was admittedly uninterested in it until the last few weeks. However, it has all the makings of a blockbuster Lifetime movie of the week: helpless woman, ne'er-do-well husband, the other woman, the epic court battles, the distraught family. This, for the time being, will be Terri's legacy --- Oprah will get to make a movie about it and dozens of tabloid-authors will write books about her in the next six months. Her family will grieve, her husband will become rich, the courts will be pilloried, lawyers will make a fortune providing clients with living wills.
However, Terri Schiavo will have an effect on this country in the long term that will be felt for a very long time.
Terri's fight was ultimately about decency. It was about the extra-judicial killing of someone unable to defend herself. It was about the morass the legal system has become. It was about the great divide between the religious and the moral and the secular and the depraved. What was done to Terri was done in the past to political prisoners in Russia and the Jews inNazi Germany; she was dehumanized, made into a political cause celebre and finally starved to death. The difference was that this time the cameras were rolling.
It will only be a matter of time before this ugly scene is repeated in 30 different places in the next 30 days. Another spouse with a husband or wife on life support will go to a court to get permission to remove their vegetative significant other from the apparatus that keeps them alive, avoiding the lengthy and expensive process of maintaining life in that state. Another family will be torn in two, suspended between hope and despair. Doctors will continue to make pronouncements based on very imperfect knowledge that will be taken as Bible truth in a court of law, where a judge who is not qualified to make medical decisions will in truth make them.
The laws will be changed. The judges will be changed. The medical system will come under increased scrutiny. The Right-To-Lifers will see to it. Democrats who insist on fillibustering judicial nominees will be bombarded by hate mail and embarrassed publicly. Terri started a revolution from her bed. It's first victim wil; be Hilary Clinton, who will suddenly start attending church everyday and visiting the the victims of PVS regularly. Even before Terri's body is cold, some democrat has designed a piece of legislation that makes appear as if they care and are fighting for the rights of the diabled. Ultimately, the ploy will fail because people will see it for what it is: grandstanding. Attempting to take advantage of a tragedy in order to position yourself for the mid-term elections.
Terri Schiavo is dead. Her fight, however, will be continued by others -- the fight between the moral and the decadent, the worshippers of life and the cultists of death.
Requiesat en Pacem.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Outsourcing...
Continuing a trend that will, eventually, make the other 1/4 of the world that isn't mad at us yet rethink that position. Here's yet another example of how far some businesses will go to shore up their...errr...bottom line. The following story was lifted from a post to FreeRepublic.com.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374151/posts
You know things have gotten out of hand when a can't-miss, sure-fire profit maker like phone sex gets outsourced.
In recent years, outsourcing has gotten a bad rap, mostly from people who have been tossed out of work, and I can understand their position. It's certainly not their fault that between benefits and employee taxes and the sheer greed of some CEO's that it's prohibitively expensive to actually hire someone these days. It's a golden rule in business, however, that when you can take advantage of lower costs, you'd be crazy not to. The advantage of outsourcing jobs to a foreign country, is of course, expense. In this case, not only will foreign workers in their home countries work for pennies on the dollar, they don't have any expectation of bennies. Yet.
Eventually, that part of the world that answers the phone for AOL or which makes a whole range of products for Wal-Mart will wake up and realize that while they are being paid a relative fortune now, they will certainly pay for it later. It's not like some guy in Pakistan has a 401(k) to lean on in his old age, or that National Health in India will pay for his Viagra. The workers there will eventually demand parity with what their Western counterparts get, or in this case, formerly got.
The upside to outsourcing from the worker's point of view (and there actually IS one, you know) is that the foreign employee is often not subject to U.S. law, which gets to be a pain in the ass for a company that outsources when it's been robbed blind by a contract employee in Bangladesh. Another upside is that it only takes one "ooops!", and the resultant lawsuit, for the outsourcer to rethink his relationship with the outsourcee. In recent years, this has happened already: I recall a case in Pakistan where a U.S. company that transcribed medical records suddenly realized it had given sensitive, personal information to an organized crime ring who used it for nefarious purposes. Imagine what would happen if the Russian mob got into some American citizen's banking or insurance records and started laundering cash. Don't laugh, it's probably happening right now and no one has noticed.
It's when things like this happen that the whole rationale for outsourcing, saving money, begins to look like a losing proposition. Eventually, the costs incurred by security measures, constant audits, and lawsuits, begin to tell. After that, it only takes one relatively intelligent executive to ask "Are the headaches worth the savings?" and the next thing you know, presto!, they start bringing those operations back "in-house".
My own personal experience after 20 years in the data processing industry have taught me three things concerning outsourcing:
1. At the end of the day, it's all about control. If you can't control your costs and ultimately your product, you start to get nervous. Executives are a bundle of nerves, most being little more than drones with too much to lose when push comes to shove. Rather than lose control over something, they'd rather take it back, no matter what it costs, provided it's important enough.
It only takes one to start a trend.
2. This isn't the first time a round of outsourcing or downsizing has occurred and it will not be the last. What's old is what's new. In my DP days, the mad rush was on to move to mini and distributed systems over mainframes because they were cheaper to operate in terms of power, cooling and occasionally, service. However, when the rush was on, nobody ever stopped to expend braincells on the issue of portability. Could the applications I run now, and depend on, be moved to a different operating system with different hardware and programming and run seamlessly? The answer was: of course not. The original stuff was designed and written to run in a mainframe environment and very often, making it work in the new environment meant massive amounts of money to re-write applications or a huge investment in consultants. Any real savings was virtually wiped out. In the end, everyone that mattered went back to a mainframe. The same thing is now happening with Linux --- the rage is the idea that you can write your own applications without having to license them. The downside is, you have huge costs associated with getting them to actually work the way you want to.
3. Today's outsourced worker is tomorrow's "must-have-guy" who can come back and name his own price. Once those applications, those businesses, are brought back in-house the people who formerly ran them usually get their jobs back and because there is a rush on, you can write your own paycheck. The rationale for outsourcing was to reduce employee costs; once the decision is made to un-outsource, the employee costs come back with a vengeance. Don't believe me? Ask all of those once-out-of-work cobol programmers who made it big again for the Y2K scare. They originally lost their jobs because they were useless mouths, but got called back when it found out that the legacy platforms and apps that were supposed to go with them never did.
Then again, think about this particular case. What happens when, for the sake of example, Western men who regularly use a phone sex service start getting upset by the bad service. I mean, who wants to talk dirty to someone who doesn't speak your language? What happens when the cultural taboos in the outsourcee country start making themselves felt, and millions of highly-paid Indian women suddenly start staying away from the job because they live in a society where a woman cna be burned to death for engaging in such activity? I can tell you what happens --- suddenly there is no longer a phone sex industry in India and the owners of the porn lines start to see their savings eaten up too as they get kicked out. Next thing you know, they'll be hiring all them Western women back just to break even!
Continuing a trend that will, eventually, make the other 1/4 of the world that isn't mad at us yet rethink that position. Here's yet another example of how far some businesses will go to shore up their...errr...bottom line. The following story was lifted from a post to FreeRepublic.com.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374151/posts
You know things have gotten out of hand when a can't-miss, sure-fire profit maker like phone sex gets outsourced.
In recent years, outsourcing has gotten a bad rap, mostly from people who have been tossed out of work, and I can understand their position. It's certainly not their fault that between benefits and employee taxes and the sheer greed of some CEO's that it's prohibitively expensive to actually hire someone these days. It's a golden rule in business, however, that when you can take advantage of lower costs, you'd be crazy not to. The advantage of outsourcing jobs to a foreign country, is of course, expense. In this case, not only will foreign workers in their home countries work for pennies on the dollar, they don't have any expectation of bennies. Yet.
Eventually, that part of the world that answers the phone for AOL or which makes a whole range of products for Wal-Mart will wake up and realize that while they are being paid a relative fortune now, they will certainly pay for it later. It's not like some guy in Pakistan has a 401(k) to lean on in his old age, or that National Health in India will pay for his Viagra. The workers there will eventually demand parity with what their Western counterparts get, or in this case, formerly got.
The upside to outsourcing from the worker's point of view (and there actually IS one, you know) is that the foreign employee is often not subject to U.S. law, which gets to be a pain in the ass for a company that outsources when it's been robbed blind by a contract employee in Bangladesh. Another upside is that it only takes one "ooops!", and the resultant lawsuit, for the outsourcer to rethink his relationship with the outsourcee. In recent years, this has happened already: I recall a case in Pakistan where a U.S. company that transcribed medical records suddenly realized it had given sensitive, personal information to an organized crime ring who used it for nefarious purposes. Imagine what would happen if the Russian mob got into some American citizen's banking or insurance records and started laundering cash. Don't laugh, it's probably happening right now and no one has noticed.
It's when things like this happen that the whole rationale for outsourcing, saving money, begins to look like a losing proposition. Eventually, the costs incurred by security measures, constant audits, and lawsuits, begin to tell. After that, it only takes one relatively intelligent executive to ask "Are the headaches worth the savings?" and the next thing you know, presto!, they start bringing those operations back "in-house".
My own personal experience after 20 years in the data processing industry have taught me three things concerning outsourcing:
1. At the end of the day, it's all about control. If you can't control your costs and ultimately your product, you start to get nervous. Executives are a bundle of nerves, most being little more than drones with too much to lose when push comes to shove. Rather than lose control over something, they'd rather take it back, no matter what it costs, provided it's important enough.
It only takes one to start a trend.
2. This isn't the first time a round of outsourcing or downsizing has occurred and it will not be the last. What's old is what's new. In my DP days, the mad rush was on to move to mini and distributed systems over mainframes because they were cheaper to operate in terms of power, cooling and occasionally, service. However, when the rush was on, nobody ever stopped to expend braincells on the issue of portability. Could the applications I run now, and depend on, be moved to a different operating system with different hardware and programming and run seamlessly? The answer was: of course not. The original stuff was designed and written to run in a mainframe environment and very often, making it work in the new environment meant massive amounts of money to re-write applications or a huge investment in consultants. Any real savings was virtually wiped out. In the end, everyone that mattered went back to a mainframe. The same thing is now happening with Linux --- the rage is the idea that you can write your own applications without having to license them. The downside is, you have huge costs associated with getting them to actually work the way you want to.
3. Today's outsourced worker is tomorrow's "must-have-guy" who can come back and name his own price. Once those applications, those businesses, are brought back in-house the people who formerly ran them usually get their jobs back and because there is a rush on, you can write your own paycheck. The rationale for outsourcing was to reduce employee costs; once the decision is made to un-outsource, the employee costs come back with a vengeance. Don't believe me? Ask all of those once-out-of-work cobol programmers who made it big again for the Y2K scare. They originally lost their jobs because they were useless mouths, but got called back when it found out that the legacy platforms and apps that were supposed to go with them never did.
Then again, think about this particular case. What happens when, for the sake of example, Western men who regularly use a phone sex service start getting upset by the bad service. I mean, who wants to talk dirty to someone who doesn't speak your language? What happens when the cultural taboos in the outsourcee country start making themselves felt, and millions of highly-paid Indian women suddenly start staying away from the job because they live in a society where a woman cna be burned to death for engaging in such activity? I can tell you what happens --- suddenly there is no longer a phone sex industry in India and the owners of the porn lines start to see their savings eaten up too as they get kicked out. Next thing you know, they'll be hiring all them Western women back just to break even!
Monday, March 28, 2005
Yet More Southern Sheeeeeeit...
The deeper I delve into the culture of the south, the more I learn. Not all of these lessons are happy ones, I'm afraid, but they are nonetheless heard-earned and much needed ones.
For a start, I had noticed some time back that racism, as I would understand it (coming from the north) simply did not exist here, and to a certain extent, this is still true. I see very little in the way of overt racism (there are no more "coloreds only" water fountains, for example), and contrary to popular belief back home, there are not legions of inbred farm folk running around in white sheets looking for someone to drape from the nearest tree. There is certainly not the mixing of the races that is more prevalent in northern parts, but, when black and white do get together here, it is mostly civil.
It's when North and South get together that things get a little dicey.
I'm constantly reminded that I am that lowest form of life imaginable: a damn Yankee. I get it whenever I ask a question that might involve someone having to think real hard, or perhaps, form an intelligent answer. If I don't get some variation on "this-is-the-way-things-are-done-here-and-it's-been-this-way-since-Christ-was-a-Corporal", I get "we're soooooo sorry things aren't what your used to. Might I suggest you go back home?"
It's become apparent that despite the historical racism, being a white guy here ain't all that great either if you're a Northerner. Particularly if you're a northerner.
Now, just what has brought on this venting of spleen, this ferral howling at the moon, this vexated diatribe? Stay still, gentle reader, for about three minutes and I'll tell ya.
I'm aggravated. I'm vexed. I'm pissed and my patience ran out a long time ago. At first, I thought it was merely a matter of me making adjustments to the southern way of life, many of which, I was more than happy to make. I understand perfectly that the ebbs and flows, the rythyms of life here are vastly different from what I'm accustomed to and I expected everything associated with my move to be a bit painful, at first.
But then I started engaging in the types of activities that one usually depends on others to either do for you or help you with. Case in point: obtaining employment.
To begin with, I have engaged the services of several employment agencies in Charlotte and now in my new stomping grounds around Greensboro. It was pure logic, in my mind, that when you do not know the job market, do not know what employers are available and furthermore, what positions are available, then you seek professional help. Hence, employment agencies.
Where I come from, obtaining a job is a straightforward business proposition: someone has a position available, they interview applicants who are qualified, they make a decision on who to hire, and presto, someone has a job. I'm sure it works this way on 4/5ths of the planet, but for some reason, once you pass the Mason-Dixon line, this simple business model suddenly disintegrates into a chaotic melee of ignorance, incompetence and, worst of all, nepotism.
I've been at this job search thing for 6 months now. I know jobs are available. U.S. News and World Report has just ranked North Carolina 10th in the country as far as new job creation in a recent issue. I read the local newspapers and everyday it seems, more Fortune 500's are relocating to North Carolina on a daily basis. Anyway, what happens when you engage an employment agency here is the following:
- you will fill in 60 pages of paper which will be promptly filed away and forgotten.
- if you call your agent every other week to ask about progress, you will be told there is none. Call more than once every other week and you will be told "you're being pushy".
- Your agent will most likely refer you to another personnel agency or agencies. Somehow, they all work together, swapping clients and such, and how any of them can make a profit this way is beyond me. They're practically begging you to call someone else while they also try to place you.
- finding a personnel agent who actually understand the industry they claim to recruit for is extremely difficult, unless you're a truck driver, warehouse specialist, cashier or domestic help. If you happen to be involved in a high-tech industry, knowlegable folks are few and far between, and for all I know, might not even exist here.
- if your resume does, magically, manage to land on someone's desk, once they find out you;re a Yankee you get a polite brush-off. "You're over-qualified" is a polite way of saying "get out, ya damn Yankee."
- One manager who actually managed to get my resume actually called me and told me he would not be interviewing me because "I'd be a damned fool if I hired my own, eventual replacement". At least he was honest.
- Your personnel agent, who is working like a (retired) sled dog -- for you! -- will start to tell you about how you should join a country club, attend trade fairs, start going to church, maybe start chewing tobacco, all in an effort to "meet the right kind of people". In other words, you will have to start networking because most hires in the south are the result of "personal relationships". i.e. nepotism. In other words, I have retained an agent who will make an astronomical fee for placing me somewhere, but I will have to do all of the legwork. So then, what is the point of retaining an agent? As I said, I can't see how any of them makes a dime.
And it all boils down to four inarguable, prescient points about southerners:
1. The are incredibly suspicious about anyone from up north. We make too much money, we have funny ideas, we're loud, pushy, obnoxious and argumentative, and this makes us suspect. This from people who eat grits, watch NASCAR, and live in a place where roadkill restaurants actually exist, where wife-beating and incest are the national pasttimes and who, on a good day, might be able to expend enough brain cells to burn calories.
2. Many southern managers I have met seem to be somewhat unbalanced: southerners can be stubborn, quick to take offense, inclined to shun that which they cannot understand, they hold epoch-long grudges for minor slights, and quite a few couldn't tie their own shoes without a government program. Give them a little authority though, and these minor psychological issues overcome any sort of decency or logic they might have in them. They become little dictators, expecting everyone to bow before the august majesty of their authority, and give little thought to what they are doing or how they are doing it.
3. I might be white, but I'm still the enemy because: a) I can get a job most southern men can't, b) I can make a shitload more money than most southern men can, c) I get my pick of the wimmenfolk afterwards. They take it personally.
4. There is a square-peg-in-the-square-hole mentality. If a job requirement lists, for example, a particular software product and you don't have knowledge of that product, but do have extensive knowledge of a similar one, you are automatically discounted. Depsite the fact that in computing, while the methodology or the specifics may differ, the principles are the same. The ability to think abstractly or make exceptions is a major barrier, not only for me, but also for the poor ploughboy who must endure the pain of thinking.
If I had to boil down the pure essence of the problems I'm having, it would come down to people being prejudiced against my northern heritage, the seeming stupidity of the people I'm dealing with and the cultural barriers peculiar to a place where the 21st century has yet to arrive. Despite these setbacks, I'm still determined to make a go of it here because despite the presence of southerners, this is still a wonderful place to live, once you get used to not being able to pick up a pack of cigarettes from the corner store at 4 a.m. For a start, there is no corner store. The conveniences of Yankee life, as I've said before, simply do not exist here. It's merely a matter of getting used to it.
But I'm getting pretty sick and tired of being called a Yankee and being treated like dirt because of it. As I was recently telling a black friend of mine, when it comes to how I'm treated by the rednecks, I now know what his people suffered through for four centuries.
The deeper I delve into the culture of the south, the more I learn. Not all of these lessons are happy ones, I'm afraid, but they are nonetheless heard-earned and much needed ones.
For a start, I had noticed some time back that racism, as I would understand it (coming from the north) simply did not exist here, and to a certain extent, this is still true. I see very little in the way of overt racism (there are no more "coloreds only" water fountains, for example), and contrary to popular belief back home, there are not legions of inbred farm folk running around in white sheets looking for someone to drape from the nearest tree. There is certainly not the mixing of the races that is more prevalent in northern parts, but, when black and white do get together here, it is mostly civil.
It's when North and South get together that things get a little dicey.
I'm constantly reminded that I am that lowest form of life imaginable: a damn Yankee. I get it whenever I ask a question that might involve someone having to think real hard, or perhaps, form an intelligent answer. If I don't get some variation on "this-is-the-way-things-are-done-here-and-it's-been-this-way-since-Christ-was-a-Corporal", I get "we're soooooo sorry things aren't what your used to. Might I suggest you go back home?"
It's become apparent that despite the historical racism, being a white guy here ain't all that great either if you're a Northerner. Particularly if you're a northerner.
Now, just what has brought on this venting of spleen, this ferral howling at the moon, this vexated diatribe? Stay still, gentle reader, for about three minutes and I'll tell ya.
I'm aggravated. I'm vexed. I'm pissed and my patience ran out a long time ago. At first, I thought it was merely a matter of me making adjustments to the southern way of life, many of which, I was more than happy to make. I understand perfectly that the ebbs and flows, the rythyms of life here are vastly different from what I'm accustomed to and I expected everything associated with my move to be a bit painful, at first.
But then I started engaging in the types of activities that one usually depends on others to either do for you or help you with. Case in point: obtaining employment.
To begin with, I have engaged the services of several employment agencies in Charlotte and now in my new stomping grounds around Greensboro. It was pure logic, in my mind, that when you do not know the job market, do not know what employers are available and furthermore, what positions are available, then you seek professional help. Hence, employment agencies.
Where I come from, obtaining a job is a straightforward business proposition: someone has a position available, they interview applicants who are qualified, they make a decision on who to hire, and presto, someone has a job. I'm sure it works this way on 4/5ths of the planet, but for some reason, once you pass the Mason-Dixon line, this simple business model suddenly disintegrates into a chaotic melee of ignorance, incompetence and, worst of all, nepotism.
I've been at this job search thing for 6 months now. I know jobs are available. U.S. News and World Report has just ranked North Carolina 10th in the country as far as new job creation in a recent issue. I read the local newspapers and everyday it seems, more Fortune 500's are relocating to North Carolina on a daily basis. Anyway, what happens when you engage an employment agency here is the following:
- you will fill in 60 pages of paper which will be promptly filed away and forgotten.
- if you call your agent every other week to ask about progress, you will be told there is none. Call more than once every other week and you will be told "you're being pushy".
- Your agent will most likely refer you to another personnel agency or agencies. Somehow, they all work together, swapping clients and such, and how any of them can make a profit this way is beyond me. They're practically begging you to call someone else while they also try to place you.
- finding a personnel agent who actually understand the industry they claim to recruit for is extremely difficult, unless you're a truck driver, warehouse specialist, cashier or domestic help. If you happen to be involved in a high-tech industry, knowlegable folks are few and far between, and for all I know, might not even exist here.
- if your resume does, magically, manage to land on someone's desk, once they find out you;re a Yankee you get a polite brush-off. "You're over-qualified" is a polite way of saying "get out, ya damn Yankee."
- One manager who actually managed to get my resume actually called me and told me he would not be interviewing me because "I'd be a damned fool if I hired my own, eventual replacement". At least he was honest.
- Your personnel agent, who is working like a (retired) sled dog -- for you! -- will start to tell you about how you should join a country club, attend trade fairs, start going to church, maybe start chewing tobacco, all in an effort to "meet the right kind of people". In other words, you will have to start networking because most hires in the south are the result of "personal relationships". i.e. nepotism. In other words, I have retained an agent who will make an astronomical fee for placing me somewhere, but I will have to do all of the legwork. So then, what is the point of retaining an agent? As I said, I can't see how any of them makes a dime.
And it all boils down to four inarguable, prescient points about southerners:
1. The are incredibly suspicious about anyone from up north. We make too much money, we have funny ideas, we're loud, pushy, obnoxious and argumentative, and this makes us suspect. This from people who eat grits, watch NASCAR, and live in a place where roadkill restaurants actually exist, where wife-beating and incest are the national pasttimes and who, on a good day, might be able to expend enough brain cells to burn calories.
2. Many southern managers I have met seem to be somewhat unbalanced: southerners can be stubborn, quick to take offense, inclined to shun that which they cannot understand, they hold epoch-long grudges for minor slights, and quite a few couldn't tie their own shoes without a government program. Give them a little authority though, and these minor psychological issues overcome any sort of decency or logic they might have in them. They become little dictators, expecting everyone to bow before the august majesty of their authority, and give little thought to what they are doing or how they are doing it.
3. I might be white, but I'm still the enemy because: a) I can get a job most southern men can't, b) I can make a shitload more money than most southern men can, c) I get my pick of the wimmenfolk afterwards. They take it personally.
4. There is a square-peg-in-the-square-hole mentality. If a job requirement lists, for example, a particular software product and you don't have knowledge of that product, but do have extensive knowledge of a similar one, you are automatically discounted. Depsite the fact that in computing, while the methodology or the specifics may differ, the principles are the same. The ability to think abstractly or make exceptions is a major barrier, not only for me, but also for the poor ploughboy who must endure the pain of thinking.
If I had to boil down the pure essence of the problems I'm having, it would come down to people being prejudiced against my northern heritage, the seeming stupidity of the people I'm dealing with and the cultural barriers peculiar to a place where the 21st century has yet to arrive. Despite these setbacks, I'm still determined to make a go of it here because despite the presence of southerners, this is still a wonderful place to live, once you get used to not being able to pick up a pack of cigarettes from the corner store at 4 a.m. For a start, there is no corner store. The conveniences of Yankee life, as I've said before, simply do not exist here. It's merely a matter of getting used to it.
But I'm getting pretty sick and tired of being called a Yankee and being treated like dirt because of it. As I was recently telling a black friend of mine, when it comes to how I'm treated by the rednecks, I now know what his people suffered through for four centuries.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Kangaroo Courts...
Re: Terri Schiavo and something I've noticed happening with regularity elsewhere: the courts in this country are screwed up beyond all belief.
The sticmking point, for lack of a better term, in Terri's case, seems to be a black-letter reading of the law. In this case, Terri's husband Michael is her guardian by virtue of marriage. In every true legal sense, he is/was authorized to make the request that Terri's feeding tube be removed seven years ago. Because there can be no verification of what Terri's true wishes might have been at the time (i.e. she was unable to make them known, there was no living will, etc.), a judge was bound by the law to order it. Medical evidence notwithstanding, there was no question that Michael was empowered to ask the judge to do so.
Thus, the legal battle to keep her alive comes down to somoething that has been engraved in stone since the inception of the legal system: the right of a spouse to make medical decisions for a disabled husband or wife.
However, such a decision discounts common sense and humanity. Get the "right" judge, the "right" experts and the 'right" venue, and you can argue that a ham sandwich has more mental firepower than Terri Schiavo. Extend that argument just a bit, and you can argue that the ham sandwich should have it's life terminated, since it's not a living thing. Terri, in the minds of many, is no longer a living thing.
One gets the impression watching the courts work on this case that the judges involved, all the way up to the Supreme Court, wishes this woman would just die already and save them from the embarrassment of having to defend a point of law that, in this case, makes the entire legal system look heartless. The courts are punting in order to save an established premise of the law in order to avoid making a decision that might one day come back to bite them on the collective ass with unintended consequences.
But courts create unintended consequences every day with some of their rulings.
When sanctuary laws lead not to protecting the innocent and oppressed, but instead to exacerbating the illegal immigration problem, that's an unintended consequence. When the recognition of gay marriage by one court in one state leads to another potential Terri situation in another state that does not recognize such a union, that'll be another. The discovery of new, unintended rights in the Constitution on a daily basis leads to many uninteded consequences: abortions are performed, criminals avoid punishment, the foundations of society such as marriage and the family, are altered beyond recognition and under assault.
Many have complained for decades that our courts are runaway trains, hijacked by radicals intent on destroying the very fabric of American society. Instead, I'd like to think that perhaps our courts have been hijacked by people with a profound lack of common sense. They hide behind the authority and the respect of the law and wash their hands of the consequences.
Part of this is our fault. In the past we have glorified the law and elevated the lawyer to heights so lofty that they appear to be something from a Cecil B. DeMille movie. We very often take what is said by a judge or a lawyer as if it had been handed down from Mount Sinai and don't stop to take the time to think about what a decision might mean for the rest of us.
Perhaps it's time to start holding our judges to account. No more semantic arguments about the intracacies of the law. No more interpretation of the Constitution in the loosest terms. Perhaps it's time we pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that judges be elected, instead of appointed. Stop lifetime tenure for Supreme Court judges. Some will argue that if judges have to run for election, they might start skewing their legal decisions to satisfy a constituency and therefore, make bad law. In response, judges are not supposed to make law, only interpret it, and secondly, perhaps if judges feared losing their jobs when making indefensible decisions, they might start applying common sense to their decisions. Since our system allows appeals to a judges decision, anyone that feels they got a bad rap from a judge could always seek remedy.
While we're at it, let's take a look at the entire legal profession, top to bottom. I'd like to know what the ABA talks about in smoky rooms on a daily basis; it has a direct effect on the public. I'd like to see more transparancy in the Supreme Court --- perhaps C-Span could create a new Supreme Court channel. After all, if cameras can be placed in a courtroom for a murder trial, they can be in place for a case regarding the amendments to the Constitution. The courts, in my opinion, have gotten away with murder (in this case, literally) because they enjoy anonymity. Their inner workings and personalities are often shielded from the public because we usually don't care unless the case is a juicy, celebrity murder.
No more judges under the impression that they are Solomon, or even worse, God.
Re: Terri Schiavo and something I've noticed happening with regularity elsewhere: the courts in this country are screwed up beyond all belief.
The sticmking point, for lack of a better term, in Terri's case, seems to be a black-letter reading of the law. In this case, Terri's husband Michael is her guardian by virtue of marriage. In every true legal sense, he is/was authorized to make the request that Terri's feeding tube be removed seven years ago. Because there can be no verification of what Terri's true wishes might have been at the time (i.e. she was unable to make them known, there was no living will, etc.), a judge was bound by the law to order it. Medical evidence notwithstanding, there was no question that Michael was empowered to ask the judge to do so.
Thus, the legal battle to keep her alive comes down to somoething that has been engraved in stone since the inception of the legal system: the right of a spouse to make medical decisions for a disabled husband or wife.
However, such a decision discounts common sense and humanity. Get the "right" judge, the "right" experts and the 'right" venue, and you can argue that a ham sandwich has more mental firepower than Terri Schiavo. Extend that argument just a bit, and you can argue that the ham sandwich should have it's life terminated, since it's not a living thing. Terri, in the minds of many, is no longer a living thing.
One gets the impression watching the courts work on this case that the judges involved, all the way up to the Supreme Court, wishes this woman would just die already and save them from the embarrassment of having to defend a point of law that, in this case, makes the entire legal system look heartless. The courts are punting in order to save an established premise of the law in order to avoid making a decision that might one day come back to bite them on the collective ass with unintended consequences.
But courts create unintended consequences every day with some of their rulings.
When sanctuary laws lead not to protecting the innocent and oppressed, but instead to exacerbating the illegal immigration problem, that's an unintended consequence. When the recognition of gay marriage by one court in one state leads to another potential Terri situation in another state that does not recognize such a union, that'll be another. The discovery of new, unintended rights in the Constitution on a daily basis leads to many uninteded consequences: abortions are performed, criminals avoid punishment, the foundations of society such as marriage and the family, are altered beyond recognition and under assault.
Many have complained for decades that our courts are runaway trains, hijacked by radicals intent on destroying the very fabric of American society. Instead, I'd like to think that perhaps our courts have been hijacked by people with a profound lack of common sense. They hide behind the authority and the respect of the law and wash their hands of the consequences.
Part of this is our fault. In the past we have glorified the law and elevated the lawyer to heights so lofty that they appear to be something from a Cecil B. DeMille movie. We very often take what is said by a judge or a lawyer as if it had been handed down from Mount Sinai and don't stop to take the time to think about what a decision might mean for the rest of us.
Perhaps it's time to start holding our judges to account. No more semantic arguments about the intracacies of the law. No more interpretation of the Constitution in the loosest terms. Perhaps it's time we pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that judges be elected, instead of appointed. Stop lifetime tenure for Supreme Court judges. Some will argue that if judges have to run for election, they might start skewing their legal decisions to satisfy a constituency and therefore, make bad law. In response, judges are not supposed to make law, only interpret it, and secondly, perhaps if judges feared losing their jobs when making indefensible decisions, they might start applying common sense to their decisions. Since our system allows appeals to a judges decision, anyone that feels they got a bad rap from a judge could always seek remedy.
While we're at it, let's take a look at the entire legal profession, top to bottom. I'd like to know what the ABA talks about in smoky rooms on a daily basis; it has a direct effect on the public. I'd like to see more transparancy in the Supreme Court --- perhaps C-Span could create a new Supreme Court channel. After all, if cameras can be placed in a courtroom for a murder trial, they can be in place for a case regarding the amendments to the Constitution. The courts, in my opinion, have gotten away with murder (in this case, literally) because they enjoy anonymity. Their inner workings and personalities are often shielded from the public because we usually don't care unless the case is a juicy, celebrity murder.
No more judges under the impression that they are Solomon, or even worse, God.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Cradle to Grave...
Liberals have long been accused of wanting to implement and enforce Cradle to Grave Socialism in this country. I've always thought that too, until the Terri Schiavo case got me to thinking.
In the American liberal's worldview, no one is entitled to a cradle --- should your mother decide to treat you in the same manner as she might treat a malignant mole on her back, you won't need one anyway. Abortion, you see, reduces the need for cradles! Of course, if your mother makes the incorrect decision and decides to carry you to term anyway, the government should pay for that damn cradle, figuratively and literally. Because we have abortion, there should, theorhetically, be more cradles to go around, once Hilary gets into office and begins putting "our children" first.
On the other hand, just as the enlightened feel they are all-powerful and omniscient, and know instinctively who should be allowed to make it out of the womb, they also hold the portfolio of death in their mighty hands. They can decide who dies, too, thus handing you the second portion of the equation.
Who dies? Certainly not murderers, rapists, certain Senators from New England, or Terrorists. However, if you're a Texas Christian, a fetus, or someone deemed incapable of enjoying some soon-to-be-rigidly-defined "quality of life", you might be just about ready to enjoy your government-provided underground condo. That is, of course, unless the ovens Hilary ordered in preparation of her coronation are delivered in time.
This, they claim, is the utopia we've been promised. True cradle to grave protection, Democratic party style.
Liberals have long been accused of wanting to implement and enforce Cradle to Grave Socialism in this country. I've always thought that too, until the Terri Schiavo case got me to thinking.
In the American liberal's worldview, no one is entitled to a cradle --- should your mother decide to treat you in the same manner as she might treat a malignant mole on her back, you won't need one anyway. Abortion, you see, reduces the need for cradles! Of course, if your mother makes the incorrect decision and decides to carry you to term anyway, the government should pay for that damn cradle, figuratively and literally. Because we have abortion, there should, theorhetically, be more cradles to go around, once Hilary gets into office and begins putting "our children" first.
On the other hand, just as the enlightened feel they are all-powerful and omniscient, and know instinctively who should be allowed to make it out of the womb, they also hold the portfolio of death in their mighty hands. They can decide who dies, too, thus handing you the second portion of the equation.
Who dies? Certainly not murderers, rapists, certain Senators from New England, or Terrorists. However, if you're a Texas Christian, a fetus, or someone deemed incapable of enjoying some soon-to-be-rigidly-defined "quality of life", you might be just about ready to enjoy your government-provided underground condo. That is, of course, unless the ovens Hilary ordered in preparation of her coronation are delivered in time.
This, they claim, is the utopia we've been promised. True cradle to grave protection, Democratic party style.
Al Sharpton, Republican...
Caught Reverend Al on TV the other night, talking about the danger to scoeity caused by gansta rap. Al is now on a crusade to get the FCC and the record companies to clean up their respective acts.
The catalyst for this new agenda was a shooting outside ofradio station where two gangs of rival rappers were booked on the same show. They were obviously booked together in order to create some kind of incident, and thus, more interesting radio. Al objected, vehemently, and is now set to use the power of market forces to hammer the genie back into the bottle.
Al Sharpton suggesting that a market regulate itself? How did that happen?
What Al suggests, simply, is that the companies that promote the violence for the sake of a dollar, be attacked from within. Instead of having the government do something, or resorting to his usual tactic of starting a riot, the Rev now suggests that the "community" become shareholders. Shareholders have power. When shareholders are upset with the corporation, they can use their ownership to force changes --- they have a voice in how the company conducts business. Makes perfect sense.
It also brings up an interesting point very often overlooked by liberals and their fellow travelers int his day and age: we're now, for better or worse, a shareholder society. Millions of us have 401(k)'s, IRA's, own shares in mutual funds, own stocks, bonds and annuities. The numbers of black Americans with the above has been increasing for over a decade. These, by the way, are the very blacks that would never vote for Al Sharpton --- they actually own something they'd like to keep.
So Al changes his tune, yet again. He takes up a conservative issue (i.e. the dreadful morals, message and activities of some rap artists) and applies a conservative remedy: use the marketplace to clean the industry up.
Yep, every day we get more republicans in this country. Although most of ours have better haircuts.
Caught Reverend Al on TV the other night, talking about the danger to scoeity caused by gansta rap. Al is now on a crusade to get the FCC and the record companies to clean up their respective acts.
The catalyst for this new agenda was a shooting outside ofradio station where two gangs of rival rappers were booked on the same show. They were obviously booked together in order to create some kind of incident, and thus, more interesting radio. Al objected, vehemently, and is now set to use the power of market forces to hammer the genie back into the bottle.
Al Sharpton suggesting that a market regulate itself? How did that happen?
What Al suggests, simply, is that the companies that promote the violence for the sake of a dollar, be attacked from within. Instead of having the government do something, or resorting to his usual tactic of starting a riot, the Rev now suggests that the "community" become shareholders. Shareholders have power. When shareholders are upset with the corporation, they can use their ownership to force changes --- they have a voice in how the company conducts business. Makes perfect sense.
It also brings up an interesting point very often overlooked by liberals and their fellow travelers int his day and age: we're now, for better or worse, a shareholder society. Millions of us have 401(k)'s, IRA's, own shares in mutual funds, own stocks, bonds and annuities. The numbers of black Americans with the above has been increasing for over a decade. These, by the way, are the very blacks that would never vote for Al Sharpton --- they actually own something they'd like to keep.
So Al changes his tune, yet again. He takes up a conservative issue (i.e. the dreadful morals, message and activities of some rap artists) and applies a conservative remedy: use the marketplace to clean the industry up.
Yep, every day we get more republicans in this country. Although most of ours have better haircuts.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Terri's Deathwatch...
Terri Schiavo will die sometime in the next week, I believe. It is inevitible now that the 11th Ciruit Court in Atlanta has decided that removing her feeding tube, as ordered by a host of Florida courts, is the right thing to do. Right, in this case, being narrowly decided on the basis of legal semantics and a manipulation of the letter of the law, while disregarding morality and anything approaching humanity. The appeal is being made, but it too, will fail and ultimately the Supreme Court will refuse to review the case.
Look now for a tidal wave of copycat cases in the immediate future in which every inconvenient relative from the child with Autism to the grandma with Alzheimers to the old-timer with a colostomy bag, parapalegics who run up tremendous medical bills, people lying in comas for more than a week, etc., are now killed or have their life support turned off.
The simple facts in this case seem never to have been taken into consideration: here we have a woman, who is quite unable, at the present, to speak for herself. Her husband (only in the sense that he married her once) tells a judge that his wife once told him not to prolong her life by artificial methods. As far as I can tell, no one else has ever heard her say any such thing and there is no other documentary evidence to gainsay him. Sixteen judges in Florida, and now ten judges in Atlanta, have decided that, all of a sudden, hearsay evidence is now admissible in court, provided it pertains to disposing of a brain-damaged person.
Terri is alive. She breathes on her own. For all we know, she is aware of her surroundings, but unable to react to them or communicate her feelings. According to the doctors who have examined her, her prognosis ranges from "possibility of rehabilitation" to "deader than a doornail". We're dealing with the human brain here, which any doctor worth his salt, would admit is still foreign territory in this day and age, and nothing is certain. She may snap out of this condition tomorrow or she may stick around, making no progress whatsoever, for the next 70 years. The only thing we're sure she cannot do is swallow and thus eat. The only "life support" system that she is on is an intravenous drip that provides her with sustenance. No repirator, no iron lung, no other machinery keeping her internal organs artificially functioning. By every measurable standard, she is alive.
However, there are those that will tell you that she has no measurable brain activity, and therefore, she's as good as dead. I remind you that Ted Kennedy has no measurable brain activity, but somehow, he's not only allowed to continue living, but is also allowed to be a Senator.
So, how do we measure life? How do we measure the "quality" of life? I can point out a few hundred people personally known to me who will often despair that "life sucks", yet they are perfectly capable of getting themselves a cheeseburger in order to prolong that sucky life or overdosing on heroin to end it. The only difference between them is that Terri is unable to do either for herself. Some would tell you that the inability to feed yourself is a reason you should be killed. These same folks will then extend the argument to include being unable to kill yourself is a reason why you should be killed. Some folks are just fascinated by death, I guess.
To some, being able to die (or kill off an inconvenient spouse who just won't kick the bucket on her own) is a matter of "choice". There's that word again, choice.
Choice, to this crowd, pertains to the right to kill anyone who is inconvenient, even before they're born, but not to smoke, own a gun or drive an SUV. The choice of life or death, of course, always falls on someone else's shoulders (a pregnant mother, a husband counting the malpractice settlement, the government, a convicted child molester, etc) but never to the person directly involved --- an unborn child, a murderer's victim, Terri Schiavo.
Should Congress have been involved in this process? Beats me. We're talking about the legal minefinds here. The bill that finally passed will be debated about forever and will rear it's ugly head in courtrooms all over the world. It is now precident: If you want to save the life of anyone, you can now go to your Congresscritter and get a law passed. That we should have to have a law passed in order to maintain the life of the brain-damaged is a sure sign that civilization will soon end. My only question regarding Congressional action is why can't they move that quickly to fix the nation's problems: immigration, eliminating federal waste, confirming judges, making English the chief lingua franca, throwing out the tax code and the IRS, making it easier to kill a convicted sex offender with a pack of wild dogs. I understand the necessity of playing to the right-to-life crowd in terms of politics, but I do not understand why Congress is able to posture easily enough but not accomplish the everyday business of the country. I don't feel a law should have been passed in Terri's case because she is obviously alive. I do, however, understand exactly why some in Congress, the ones who actually acted out of convictions, did what they did.
However, this particular Congressional action may have some unintended consequence. When, for example, a mother decideds to abort a child she knows will be born with physical or mental handicaps, against the father's wishes, does the father now talk his senator into introducing a bill? It will happen, soon, mark my words, and what was a fabulous gesture on behalf of the living will now turn into yet another campaign issue --- something that will be forever debated, but never solved. Kept alive (no pun intended) for the sake of having something to talk about for the next three decades. Like social security reform.
I pray for Terri Schiavo and her family. I thank the truly engaged for the efforts they put forth to save her life. I cringe when I think of the appeals court that dithered and then washed it hands, probably hoping she would die before a decision needed to be made.
Terri Schiavo will die sometime in the next week, I believe. It is inevitible now that the 11th Ciruit Court in Atlanta has decided that removing her feeding tube, as ordered by a host of Florida courts, is the right thing to do. Right, in this case, being narrowly decided on the basis of legal semantics and a manipulation of the letter of the law, while disregarding morality and anything approaching humanity. The appeal is being made, but it too, will fail and ultimately the Supreme Court will refuse to review the case.
Look now for a tidal wave of copycat cases in the immediate future in which every inconvenient relative from the child with Autism to the grandma with Alzheimers to the old-timer with a colostomy bag, parapalegics who run up tremendous medical bills, people lying in comas for more than a week, etc., are now killed or have their life support turned off.
The simple facts in this case seem never to have been taken into consideration: here we have a woman, who is quite unable, at the present, to speak for herself. Her husband (only in the sense that he married her once) tells a judge that his wife once told him not to prolong her life by artificial methods. As far as I can tell, no one else has ever heard her say any such thing and there is no other documentary evidence to gainsay him. Sixteen judges in Florida, and now ten judges in Atlanta, have decided that, all of a sudden, hearsay evidence is now admissible in court, provided it pertains to disposing of a brain-damaged person.
Terri is alive. She breathes on her own. For all we know, she is aware of her surroundings, but unable to react to them or communicate her feelings. According to the doctors who have examined her, her prognosis ranges from "possibility of rehabilitation" to "deader than a doornail". We're dealing with the human brain here, which any doctor worth his salt, would admit is still foreign territory in this day and age, and nothing is certain. She may snap out of this condition tomorrow or she may stick around, making no progress whatsoever, for the next 70 years. The only thing we're sure she cannot do is swallow and thus eat. The only "life support" system that she is on is an intravenous drip that provides her with sustenance. No repirator, no iron lung, no other machinery keeping her internal organs artificially functioning. By every measurable standard, she is alive.
However, there are those that will tell you that she has no measurable brain activity, and therefore, she's as good as dead. I remind you that Ted Kennedy has no measurable brain activity, but somehow, he's not only allowed to continue living, but is also allowed to be a Senator.
So, how do we measure life? How do we measure the "quality" of life? I can point out a few hundred people personally known to me who will often despair that "life sucks", yet they are perfectly capable of getting themselves a cheeseburger in order to prolong that sucky life or overdosing on heroin to end it. The only difference between them is that Terri is unable to do either for herself. Some would tell you that the inability to feed yourself is a reason you should be killed. These same folks will then extend the argument to include being unable to kill yourself is a reason why you should be killed. Some folks are just fascinated by death, I guess.
To some, being able to die (or kill off an inconvenient spouse who just won't kick the bucket on her own) is a matter of "choice". There's that word again, choice.
Choice, to this crowd, pertains to the right to kill anyone who is inconvenient, even before they're born, but not to smoke, own a gun or drive an SUV. The choice of life or death, of course, always falls on someone else's shoulders (a pregnant mother, a husband counting the malpractice settlement, the government, a convicted child molester, etc) but never to the person directly involved --- an unborn child, a murderer's victim, Terri Schiavo.
Should Congress have been involved in this process? Beats me. We're talking about the legal minefinds here. The bill that finally passed will be debated about forever and will rear it's ugly head in courtrooms all over the world. It is now precident: If you want to save the life of anyone, you can now go to your Congresscritter and get a law passed. That we should have to have a law passed in order to maintain the life of the brain-damaged is a sure sign that civilization will soon end. My only question regarding Congressional action is why can't they move that quickly to fix the nation's problems: immigration, eliminating federal waste, confirming judges, making English the chief lingua franca, throwing out the tax code and the IRS, making it easier to kill a convicted sex offender with a pack of wild dogs. I understand the necessity of playing to the right-to-life crowd in terms of politics, but I do not understand why Congress is able to posture easily enough but not accomplish the everyday business of the country. I don't feel a law should have been passed in Terri's case because she is obviously alive. I do, however, understand exactly why some in Congress, the ones who actually acted out of convictions, did what they did.
However, this particular Congressional action may have some unintended consequence. When, for example, a mother decideds to abort a child she knows will be born with physical or mental handicaps, against the father's wishes, does the father now talk his senator into introducing a bill? It will happen, soon, mark my words, and what was a fabulous gesture on behalf of the living will now turn into yet another campaign issue --- something that will be forever debated, but never solved. Kept alive (no pun intended) for the sake of having something to talk about for the next three decades. Like social security reform.
I pray for Terri Schiavo and her family. I thank the truly engaged for the efforts they put forth to save her life. I cringe when I think of the appeals court that dithered and then washed it hands, probably hoping she would die before a decision needed to be made.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Demonstrations of Idiocy...
All over the country today, demonstrations will be held to protest the occupation of Iraq. The majority of the people involved in these demonstrations will be the seriously retarded denizens of the colleges, the aging hippies, those that will use the events to advance unrelated agendas (I expect the homosexuals to be out in force), the Bush haters, the slackers and the truly-disintertested-but-there-to-hook-up-with-hippie-chicks.
The organizers of these protests claim that he war in Iraq was illegal and immoral, and cite the same, tired reasons for their disconnected logic. Knocking them down one at a time:
a) We went to war for oil: considering the price of oil hit near $60 a barrel this week, I'm wondering where all this free, illegally-gained oil actually is. Californians are now paying above $3 for a gallon of gas, and the rest of us are approaching $2.50. Congress has allowed for the exploration of and drilling for oil in the ANWR. World energy prices are skyrocketing due to increased demand and lower supplies, mainly caused by OPEC's continued manipulation of the market. if the United States is now swimming in oil, I have yet to see it.
b) Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States - Well, neither did Slobodan Milosevic. Neither did General Aidid in Somalia. Neither did the genocide in Rwanda, the sectarian turmoil in Northern Ireland, the slaughter of innocents in the Ivory Coast. Yet, the same people who now claim qualifications to assess threats to national security, where protesting then that the United States either did nothing or should have done more to solve those problems where no clear national interest actually lay. Apparently, we should only use power in the interests of France, not in our own. Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security here: he, himself, might not have launched a missle at us or personally highjacked an airliner, but he was capable of funneling arms, money and WMD's to surrogates. In fact, he was. Palesinian terrosists were receiving cash payments from him. European intelligence agencies recorded meetings between Iraqi agents and terrorist groups. Saddam had used WMD on several occasions: ask the Iranians and Kurds, and had the means to deliver them outside of his borders: ask the Saudis, Kuwaitis and Israelis, all once on the receiving end of Scuds.
c) There were no WMD's in Iraq - Au contraire, but there were --- UN Weapons inspectors found them. The UN helped destroy some of them. There was no way of knowing if they were all destroyed, however, and the subsequent actions of the the Iraqi government, it's scientists, the United Nations Inspectors and intelligence services all over the planet, made it clear that until it could be positively ascertained that Iraq was WMD-free that no one should sleep soundly. In the aftermath of the invasion two years ago, coalition forces were still finding artillery shells, rockets and remote-controlled airplanes that contained, or were designed to deliver, WMD's. The fact that, up until this time, no missile, bomb, or other contrivance of war has been found loaded to the gills with VX, for example, it doesn't automatically follow that such things do not still exist somewhere. They just haven't been found yet.
d) the War is Illegal: Again, there were 17 seperate UN resolutions authroizing the United Sates to act militarily in Iraq. Iraq was in violation of all 17. Several members of the Security Council were, in fact, themselves, complicit in helping the former regime circumvent or violate the UN's own resolutions. The United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and appropriated funds for the invasion and subsequent rebuilding effort. Thirty-plus nations initially joined the United States in Iraq, which was more than twice the number that fought under UN colors in Korea. I gather that thirty-plus nations are also acting illegally, but it seems none of them will be mentioned during the protests.
So march all you want. Make up all the bullshit excuses you want for not doing your part to protect the country. Contrive and spread all the propaganda your tiny minds can conceive. The fcat is that no one is really listening to you and you're preaching to the choir anyway: the same people who will join you are the same people who would ask "What did I do to cause this?" when the next airliner hits the Sears Tower or when they get anthrax in the mail. In other words, you're preaching to those who would expect to be given all the fruits of Western Civilization without lifting a finger to get it for themselves or even to make any sort of positive contribution. You know, the kind of people who are responsible for having instructions put on shampoo bottles or directions on a can of soup for it's proper use -- in other words, the braindead, the lazy and the folks who want to be mollycoddled from cradle to grave.
Ffteen hundred Americans have given their lives in Iraq to do three, extraodrinary things: travel half-way around the world in order to provide a shield behind which you exercise your right to bleat like sheep, created conditions where fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan may incubate, and finally, brought something resembling actual civilization to an area of the world where such things were typically considered bad because they had a Western taint.
You are really marching for selfish reasons (i.e. you don't want to have to actually go to war to foster these things, only reap the benefits).
As for the calls that the money being spent in the Middle East can easily be of more use here, I remind you that if given $80 billion, the Department of Education will promptly lose it. The Secretary for Housing and Urban Development would simply use it to create more "empowerment zones" which are simply ghettos with a different name. Just because the money would be put to "better uses" by your ilk does not guarentee that your ideas are any better.
All over the country today, demonstrations will be held to protest the occupation of Iraq. The majority of the people involved in these demonstrations will be the seriously retarded denizens of the colleges, the aging hippies, those that will use the events to advance unrelated agendas (I expect the homosexuals to be out in force), the Bush haters, the slackers and the truly-disintertested-but-there-to-hook-up-with-hippie-chicks.
The organizers of these protests claim that he war in Iraq was illegal and immoral, and cite the same, tired reasons for their disconnected logic. Knocking them down one at a time:
a) We went to war for oil: considering the price of oil hit near $60 a barrel this week, I'm wondering where all this free, illegally-gained oil actually is. Californians are now paying above $3 for a gallon of gas, and the rest of us are approaching $2.50. Congress has allowed for the exploration of and drilling for oil in the ANWR. World energy prices are skyrocketing due to increased demand and lower supplies, mainly caused by OPEC's continued manipulation of the market. if the United States is now swimming in oil, I have yet to see it.
b) Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States - Well, neither did Slobodan Milosevic. Neither did General Aidid in Somalia. Neither did the genocide in Rwanda, the sectarian turmoil in Northern Ireland, the slaughter of innocents in the Ivory Coast. Yet, the same people who now claim qualifications to assess threats to national security, where protesting then that the United States either did nothing or should have done more to solve those problems where no clear national interest actually lay. Apparently, we should only use power in the interests of France, not in our own. Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security here: he, himself, might not have launched a missle at us or personally highjacked an airliner, but he was capable of funneling arms, money and WMD's to surrogates. In fact, he was. Palesinian terrosists were receiving cash payments from him. European intelligence agencies recorded meetings between Iraqi agents and terrorist groups. Saddam had used WMD on several occasions: ask the Iranians and Kurds, and had the means to deliver them outside of his borders: ask the Saudis, Kuwaitis and Israelis, all once on the receiving end of Scuds.
c) There were no WMD's in Iraq - Au contraire, but there were --- UN Weapons inspectors found them. The UN helped destroy some of them. There was no way of knowing if they were all destroyed, however, and the subsequent actions of the the Iraqi government, it's scientists, the United Nations Inspectors and intelligence services all over the planet, made it clear that until it could be positively ascertained that Iraq was WMD-free that no one should sleep soundly. In the aftermath of the invasion two years ago, coalition forces were still finding artillery shells, rockets and remote-controlled airplanes that contained, or were designed to deliver, WMD's. The fact that, up until this time, no missile, bomb, or other contrivance of war has been found loaded to the gills with VX, for example, it doesn't automatically follow that such things do not still exist somewhere. They just haven't been found yet.
d) the War is Illegal: Again, there were 17 seperate UN resolutions authroizing the United Sates to act militarily in Iraq. Iraq was in violation of all 17. Several members of the Security Council were, in fact, themselves, complicit in helping the former regime circumvent or violate the UN's own resolutions. The United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and appropriated funds for the invasion and subsequent rebuilding effort. Thirty-plus nations initially joined the United States in Iraq, which was more than twice the number that fought under UN colors in Korea. I gather that thirty-plus nations are also acting illegally, but it seems none of them will be mentioned during the protests.
So march all you want. Make up all the bullshit excuses you want for not doing your part to protect the country. Contrive and spread all the propaganda your tiny minds can conceive. The fcat is that no one is really listening to you and you're preaching to the choir anyway: the same people who will join you are the same people who would ask "What did I do to cause this?" when the next airliner hits the Sears Tower or when they get anthrax in the mail. In other words, you're preaching to those who would expect to be given all the fruits of Western Civilization without lifting a finger to get it for themselves or even to make any sort of positive contribution. You know, the kind of people who are responsible for having instructions put on shampoo bottles or directions on a can of soup for it's proper use -- in other words, the braindead, the lazy and the folks who want to be mollycoddled from cradle to grave.
Ffteen hundred Americans have given their lives in Iraq to do three, extraodrinary things: travel half-way around the world in order to provide a shield behind which you exercise your right to bleat like sheep, created conditions where fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan may incubate, and finally, brought something resembling actual civilization to an area of the world where such things were typically considered bad because they had a Western taint.
You are really marching for selfish reasons (i.e. you don't want to have to actually go to war to foster these things, only reap the benefits).
As for the calls that the money being spent in the Middle East can easily be of more use here, I remind you that if given $80 billion, the Department of Education will promptly lose it. The Secretary for Housing and Urban Development would simply use it to create more "empowerment zones" which are simply ghettos with a different name. Just because the money would be put to "better uses" by your ilk does not guarentee that your ideas are any better.
Seriously Misplaced Priorities...
Re Terri Shiavo: I will admit to not having paid much attention to this stuff, but the last two weeks have been nearly wall-to-wall Terri coverage on the news, in between Michael Jackson, Jessica Lundsford (R.I.P Little One, may God comfort you!) and Scott Peterson.
From where I sit, it all brings up serious questions about the priorities and utility vis-a-vis the courts in this country.
In the case of Terri Shiavo, here we have a woman who has been in a vegetative state for several years. She does not function normally, being unable to swallow and thus feed herself, probably cannot communicate with those around her, and for all I know, is completely unaware of her condition and surroundings. But, and this is important --- she is still alive.
And this seems to be a problem for her husband, who from what I can gather, was once devoted to her care and maintenance, until the malpractice suit paid off. Now he's got himself a new woman and a gaggle of children, and wants to see Terri's life support apparatus disconnected. Apparently, this is cheaper than a divorce. Now, I don't not know all of the details, but it does seem rather convenient that seven years into her coma or whatever it is, the husband suddenly remembers that Terri told him not to take extraordinary measures or somesuch to prolong her life in this situation. Also coveniently, these insturctions were never written down, and apparently he's the only one who can verify that she ever said any such thing. Since Terri, barring a miracle, will never be able to testify to that point on her own, this premise stinks on ice.
However, a court in Florida seems more than willing to see things the husband's way, and a judge has ordered that the feeding tube be removed. This has happened several times in the past, and every time, the courts have seen fit to reverse such rulings. From what I have been able to gather, this is not the only judge that has ordered that Terri be starved to death, which makes it look to me that the husband, in his desperation to kill off his wife, has been shopping for judges for several years --- and keeps finding ones that see things his way. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that these same judges would be opposed to the death penalty for a violent murderer and possibly have handed out heavy-handed sentences to animal abusers, but seem to have no problem with killing off an innocent person who just happens to have been seriously injured and who might one day be rehabilitated. I'm not a neurologist, but the possibility seems to exist that perhaps, one day, Terri just might snap out of it, or with effort, be made somewhat functional again.
Vis-a-vis Michael Jackson, the courts have been all over the map on his activities and proclivities and still we go through the motions of having a trial. As far as I'm concerned, one allegation might be someone with an axe to grind. Two allegations raise eyebrows. Mike is on his fourth or fifth allegation. At what point do we begin to realize that, perhaps, these allegations are true? I realize that there is a burden of proof and people are innocent until proven otherwise and all of that other legal bullshit, but either Michael is guilty or he's the unluckiest sonofabitch on the planet. In his case, instead of a trial, we're treated to a circus and a PR offensive: this trial is no longer about law, facts and evidence, it's about lawyers making each other's witnesses look bad. Each day we hear about the prosecution scoring a point, only to have the defense score one of it's own, and from what I can tell, we're getting no closer to the truth: is Michael Jackson molesting children? Is he a pedophile who needs to be locked away for the safety of society? Or is all of this courtroom manuevering just a serious waste of time?
Jessica Lunsford has been murdered, and God knows whatever else happened to her. The perp is a convicted sex offender whom the courts deemed safe to be released from prison. Mistake number one. The perpetrator, John Couey, was listed in a Florida sex offender directory and suppposed to be supervised in some way, but somehow, he managed to not be where he was supposed to be and then fled the jurisdiction, finally being arrested in Georgia. Mistake number two. How the courts in Florida can debate the deliberate starving to death of an innocent woman and let a convicted (24 arrests), persistent offender walk the streets in order to prey upon little grils is beyond me.
We won't even get into Peterson's situation.
The courts are supposed to protect us, they are supposed to enforce the law, as it is written. Instead, we get courts packed to the gills with judges who are willing to use their discretion to advance some seriously demented agendas: that inconveniently ill people can be killed, that the obviously guilty can continue to buy their way out of justice, that criminals have rights after being convicted and are entitled to walk around despite the fact that they will offend again. Add this to recent court rulings about everything under the sun from the Ten Commandments to Gay Marriage to Immigration problems and it's hard to see just what utility the courts are serving in this day and age. It certainly is not to uphold the law with any kind of common sense or decency, or to protect the civil society in which we're supposed to be living in.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion:
-Terri's husband should be taken out and shot. The judge(s) who fell for his seemingly transparent recollection of Terri's will not to be saved should be drawn and quartered, on Pay-per-view.
- Michael Jackson is as guilty as all sin, it's been obvious for a decade now, and the legal manuevering should cease and the judge in that case should set himself towards enforcing the law.
- John Couey should be made to suffer a slow, agonizing death, peferably something to do with honey and a nest of fire ants. All sex offenders should be locked away forever, to hell with civil rights in their case. I'd return to the ancient Roman practice of making human candles out of them, which would put a dent in the country's energy problems.
- Scott Peterson should have been executed as soon as the guilty verdict came in. Barring some atomic bomb-like evidence (and it appears that none will be forthcoming, the man was caught dead to rights), screw the appeal process. We should stop looking at criminals as victims of circumstance and start looking at them as they are: seriously demented people who pose a danger to the rest of us.
Re Terri Shiavo: I will admit to not having paid much attention to this stuff, but the last two weeks have been nearly wall-to-wall Terri coverage on the news, in between Michael Jackson, Jessica Lundsford (R.I.P Little One, may God comfort you!) and Scott Peterson.
From where I sit, it all brings up serious questions about the priorities and utility vis-a-vis the courts in this country.
In the case of Terri Shiavo, here we have a woman who has been in a vegetative state for several years. She does not function normally, being unable to swallow and thus feed herself, probably cannot communicate with those around her, and for all I know, is completely unaware of her condition and surroundings. But, and this is important --- she is still alive.
And this seems to be a problem for her husband, who from what I can gather, was once devoted to her care and maintenance, until the malpractice suit paid off. Now he's got himself a new woman and a gaggle of children, and wants to see Terri's life support apparatus disconnected. Apparently, this is cheaper than a divorce. Now, I don't not know all of the details, but it does seem rather convenient that seven years into her coma or whatever it is, the husband suddenly remembers that Terri told him not to take extraordinary measures or somesuch to prolong her life in this situation. Also coveniently, these insturctions were never written down, and apparently he's the only one who can verify that she ever said any such thing. Since Terri, barring a miracle, will never be able to testify to that point on her own, this premise stinks on ice.
However, a court in Florida seems more than willing to see things the husband's way, and a judge has ordered that the feeding tube be removed. This has happened several times in the past, and every time, the courts have seen fit to reverse such rulings. From what I have been able to gather, this is not the only judge that has ordered that Terri be starved to death, which makes it look to me that the husband, in his desperation to kill off his wife, has been shopping for judges for several years --- and keeps finding ones that see things his way. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that these same judges would be opposed to the death penalty for a violent murderer and possibly have handed out heavy-handed sentences to animal abusers, but seem to have no problem with killing off an innocent person who just happens to have been seriously injured and who might one day be rehabilitated. I'm not a neurologist, but the possibility seems to exist that perhaps, one day, Terri just might snap out of it, or with effort, be made somewhat functional again.
Vis-a-vis Michael Jackson, the courts have been all over the map on his activities and proclivities and still we go through the motions of having a trial. As far as I'm concerned, one allegation might be someone with an axe to grind. Two allegations raise eyebrows. Mike is on his fourth or fifth allegation. At what point do we begin to realize that, perhaps, these allegations are true? I realize that there is a burden of proof and people are innocent until proven otherwise and all of that other legal bullshit, but either Michael is guilty or he's the unluckiest sonofabitch on the planet. In his case, instead of a trial, we're treated to a circus and a PR offensive: this trial is no longer about law, facts and evidence, it's about lawyers making each other's witnesses look bad. Each day we hear about the prosecution scoring a point, only to have the defense score one of it's own, and from what I can tell, we're getting no closer to the truth: is Michael Jackson molesting children? Is he a pedophile who needs to be locked away for the safety of society? Or is all of this courtroom manuevering just a serious waste of time?
Jessica Lunsford has been murdered, and God knows whatever else happened to her. The perp is a convicted sex offender whom the courts deemed safe to be released from prison. Mistake number one. The perpetrator, John Couey, was listed in a Florida sex offender directory and suppposed to be supervised in some way, but somehow, he managed to not be where he was supposed to be and then fled the jurisdiction, finally being arrested in Georgia. Mistake number two. How the courts in Florida can debate the deliberate starving to death of an innocent woman and let a convicted (24 arrests), persistent offender walk the streets in order to prey upon little grils is beyond me.
We won't even get into Peterson's situation.
The courts are supposed to protect us, they are supposed to enforce the law, as it is written. Instead, we get courts packed to the gills with judges who are willing to use their discretion to advance some seriously demented agendas: that inconveniently ill people can be killed, that the obviously guilty can continue to buy their way out of justice, that criminals have rights after being convicted and are entitled to walk around despite the fact that they will offend again. Add this to recent court rulings about everything under the sun from the Ten Commandments to Gay Marriage to Immigration problems and it's hard to see just what utility the courts are serving in this day and age. It certainly is not to uphold the law with any kind of common sense or decency, or to protect the civil society in which we're supposed to be living in.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion:
-Terri's husband should be taken out and shot. The judge(s) who fell for his seemingly transparent recollection of Terri's will not to be saved should be drawn and quartered, on Pay-per-view.
- Michael Jackson is as guilty as all sin, it's been obvious for a decade now, and the legal manuevering should cease and the judge in that case should set himself towards enforcing the law.
- John Couey should be made to suffer a slow, agonizing death, peferably something to do with honey and a nest of fire ants. All sex offenders should be locked away forever, to hell with civil rights in their case. I'd return to the ancient Roman practice of making human candles out of them, which would put a dent in the country's energy problems.
- Scott Peterson should have been executed as soon as the guilty verdict came in. Barring some atomic bomb-like evidence (and it appears that none will be forthcoming, the man was caught dead to rights), screw the appeal process. We should stop looking at criminals as victims of circumstance and start looking at them as they are: seriously demented people who pose a danger to the rest of us.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Congress on Steroids...
I watched the farce that was the Congressional Hearing on Steroid Use (or whatever they're calling it) on television, and came to several, familiar conclusions.
1. Professional athletes live on a different planet than the rest of us - I saw Jose Canseco beg for immunity, Mark McGuire, for all intents and purposes, took the Fifth, and Sammy Sosa pretended he didn't speak English when the questions got too specific. Any average citizen dragged before a Congressional committe would not have gotten away with what these guys have; they took illegal substances to acquire fame, and then use that fame to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. McGuire was the worst. His repeated mantra of "I'm not here to talk about the past" (i.e. I'm guilty as hell, but don't expect me to fess up -- I don't have to) was nauseating. Jose Canseco is still the slimy piece of shyte he's always been, and you know he only agreed to show up because he has to push a book. Even when he was confronted with the contradictions in his book, such as the fact that he claims steroids are fine and here to stay, contrasted with his "do as I say, not as I do" spiel, he came off as someone who feels that he is above the rules.
2. Congressmen live on different planet than the rest of us - One only had to look at the Mouse of the House, Henry Waxman (Idiot-California) and his asshole buddy, Bernie Sanders (Communist-Vermont), and the absolute glee they both displayed at being in front of a TV camera, to know it. Bernie took the opportunity to rail about a healthcare "crisis" in this country, which was totally unrelated to what the purpose of the hearing was. Waxman continued his usual practice of speaking from his rectum. This is another instance of Congress deciding it has a right to stick it's colelctive nose under any goddamn tent flap it wishes to. Baseball will not be cleaned up by Congressional action. Marijuana and cocaine are against the law, people in everyday life are randomly tested everyday, and still people use marijuana and cocaine. Laws will do nothing to fix this problem --- the marketplace must correct itself, once again. If baseball were serious about this issue, then players who were caught using steriods would not only be suspended, they would lose serious money, not these measly fines that Bud Selig bandied about as proof positive he's being tough. In this instance, the owners and the baseball folks must realize that many people do, in fact, care about the integrity of the game. Once that integrity is violated, people begin to stay away. Once star athletes who draw the crowds tot he stadium every day start dropping like flies because of suspensions, people will stay away in droves. At that point, the owners will get serious before they lose fans and, more importantly to them, money.
3. Some people still refuse to take responsibility for their actions - this was evident in every way from McGuire refusing to fess up, to Canseco pretending that he didn't start this whole brouhaha and Selig pretending that he is the Commissioner. However, the best and worst example of not taking personal responsibility were the parents of the youngsters who died because of steroid use. Their responsibility as parents was to ensure their children were okay. If, for example, your 15 year old bulks up from 100 pounds to a hefty 180 in a short period of time, you should realize something is up. When your typically mild-mannered child begins to act out in rage unexpectedly, the red flag has been raised. However, in the society we live in we always find someone else to blame. In this case, baseball players caused these kids to do nasty things to their bodies that eventually killed them, and their parents did not notice or did nothing until it was too late. Granted, these players are role models, but they are not a substitute for interested, involved, loving parents. I feel bad that they lost their children, but at some point, you have to take the responsibility of finding out what your kids are up to.Your son is not dead because Jose Canseco took steroids -- he's dead because he took steroids and you didn't do anything about it. Blaming McGuire and Canseco may ease your conscience, but it doesn't erase the fact that you failed as parents.
4. Steroid use is merely an aspect of technology - what I mean by this is simply that science continues to advance, in all aspects of human endeavor, and occasionally, that technology is going to be misused. Steroids were intended to help people with specific, physical maladies, and it's the side effects (boost in testosterone, muscle bulk, increased strength, etc) that were the payoff in this particular misuse of the medications. Technology has affected sports in almost every way imaginable: we have better, stronger materials for our equipment, althletes have access to more information on nutrition and strength training than ever before. Physics has been applied to every aspect of sport from the action of a curveball to the ergonomics of a running shoe. Sporting implements that used to be made of natural materials such as wood and leather have given way to polycarbons and advanced plastics. Newer techniques of production and design have made equipment more effective than ever. How many home runs do you think Hank Aaron would have hit if his bats had been designed on a computer capable of taking the physics of the swing and contact with the ball into account? If he'd had the access to nutritionists, personal trainers and sports medicine specialists would he have played into his 40's, like Barry Bonds is set to do? An intersting point was made by Arnold Schwartzenegger the other night on Hardball: how would a pole vaulter of 50 years ago fared with today's polycarbonite pole that flexes and literally flings the vaulter over the bar as opposed to the old-fashioned wooden poles with very little give? The point is that science enters into our daily lives on every level and that today steroids are the enemy while tomorrow it might be genetic engineering.
5. The Players have the owners over a barrel and they know it - Listening to the folks from MLB try to explain their non-policy policy yesterday, it became obvious that the point of collective bargaining for the players is to protect their own asses, especially when ti comes to the use and distribution of illicit substances. The fines and penalties for drug use outlined yesterday were atrocious and some Congressmen were actually smart enough to notice. Some even did the math to the extent that they realized the fines and suspensions were little more than nuisances to a guy who makes several million dollars a year. The players could never get away with negotiating this good a deal for themselves if the owners were not complicit. After yesterday, I think that's all changed; the public now knows that that players have "get out of jail free" cards written into their contracts.
I personally stopped following baseball, except for occasional encounters with the game, several years ago. A decade of strikes by grown men who get paid a great deal of money to play a kid's game struck me a somewhat retarded. I'm even sicker over it when my favorite sport of hockey is now involved in the same thing. However, I have, in the past couple of years, actually gone to the ballpark and watched a few games, both pro and A-ball. I liked the A-ball game better, since the players there were hustling, diving, sliding and striving; it was fun to watch. I'd rather watch people who are hungry, who want to make a name for themselves, who play hard everyday with enthusiasm than to watch a drug-enhanced, multi-millionaire who won't even try to leg out a ground ball. That's baseball. What we have now, with junkie players and timid owners more concerned with their wallets than their product, is too painful to watch.
I watched the farce that was the Congressional Hearing on Steroid Use (or whatever they're calling it) on television, and came to several, familiar conclusions.
1. Professional athletes live on a different planet than the rest of us - I saw Jose Canseco beg for immunity, Mark McGuire, for all intents and purposes, took the Fifth, and Sammy Sosa pretended he didn't speak English when the questions got too specific. Any average citizen dragged before a Congressional committe would not have gotten away with what these guys have; they took illegal substances to acquire fame, and then use that fame to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. McGuire was the worst. His repeated mantra of "I'm not here to talk about the past" (i.e. I'm guilty as hell, but don't expect me to fess up -- I don't have to) was nauseating. Jose Canseco is still the slimy piece of shyte he's always been, and you know he only agreed to show up because he has to push a book. Even when he was confronted with the contradictions in his book, such as the fact that he claims steroids are fine and here to stay, contrasted with his "do as I say, not as I do" spiel, he came off as someone who feels that he is above the rules.
2. Congressmen live on different planet than the rest of us - One only had to look at the Mouse of the House, Henry Waxman (Idiot-California) and his asshole buddy, Bernie Sanders (Communist-Vermont), and the absolute glee they both displayed at being in front of a TV camera, to know it. Bernie took the opportunity to rail about a healthcare "crisis" in this country, which was totally unrelated to what the purpose of the hearing was. Waxman continued his usual practice of speaking from his rectum. This is another instance of Congress deciding it has a right to stick it's colelctive nose under any goddamn tent flap it wishes to. Baseball will not be cleaned up by Congressional action. Marijuana and cocaine are against the law, people in everyday life are randomly tested everyday, and still people use marijuana and cocaine. Laws will do nothing to fix this problem --- the marketplace must correct itself, once again. If baseball were serious about this issue, then players who were caught using steriods would not only be suspended, they would lose serious money, not these measly fines that Bud Selig bandied about as proof positive he's being tough. In this instance, the owners and the baseball folks must realize that many people do, in fact, care about the integrity of the game. Once that integrity is violated, people begin to stay away. Once star athletes who draw the crowds tot he stadium every day start dropping like flies because of suspensions, people will stay away in droves. At that point, the owners will get serious before they lose fans and, more importantly to them, money.
3. Some people still refuse to take responsibility for their actions - this was evident in every way from McGuire refusing to fess up, to Canseco pretending that he didn't start this whole brouhaha and Selig pretending that he is the Commissioner. However, the best and worst example of not taking personal responsibility were the parents of the youngsters who died because of steroid use. Their responsibility as parents was to ensure their children were okay. If, for example, your 15 year old bulks up from 100 pounds to a hefty 180 in a short period of time, you should realize something is up. When your typically mild-mannered child begins to act out in rage unexpectedly, the red flag has been raised. However, in the society we live in we always find someone else to blame. In this case, baseball players caused these kids to do nasty things to their bodies that eventually killed them, and their parents did not notice or did nothing until it was too late. Granted, these players are role models, but they are not a substitute for interested, involved, loving parents. I feel bad that they lost their children, but at some point, you have to take the responsibility of finding out what your kids are up to.Your son is not dead because Jose Canseco took steroids -- he's dead because he took steroids and you didn't do anything about it. Blaming McGuire and Canseco may ease your conscience, but it doesn't erase the fact that you failed as parents.
4. Steroid use is merely an aspect of technology - what I mean by this is simply that science continues to advance, in all aspects of human endeavor, and occasionally, that technology is going to be misused. Steroids were intended to help people with specific, physical maladies, and it's the side effects (boost in testosterone, muscle bulk, increased strength, etc) that were the payoff in this particular misuse of the medications. Technology has affected sports in almost every way imaginable: we have better, stronger materials for our equipment, althletes have access to more information on nutrition and strength training than ever before. Physics has been applied to every aspect of sport from the action of a curveball to the ergonomics of a running shoe. Sporting implements that used to be made of natural materials such as wood and leather have given way to polycarbons and advanced plastics. Newer techniques of production and design have made equipment more effective than ever. How many home runs do you think Hank Aaron would have hit if his bats had been designed on a computer capable of taking the physics of the swing and contact with the ball into account? If he'd had the access to nutritionists, personal trainers and sports medicine specialists would he have played into his 40's, like Barry Bonds is set to do? An intersting point was made by Arnold Schwartzenegger the other night on Hardball: how would a pole vaulter of 50 years ago fared with today's polycarbonite pole that flexes and literally flings the vaulter over the bar as opposed to the old-fashioned wooden poles with very little give? The point is that science enters into our daily lives on every level and that today steroids are the enemy while tomorrow it might be genetic engineering.
5. The Players have the owners over a barrel and they know it - Listening to the folks from MLB try to explain their non-policy policy yesterday, it became obvious that the point of collective bargaining for the players is to protect their own asses, especially when ti comes to the use and distribution of illicit substances. The fines and penalties for drug use outlined yesterday were atrocious and some Congressmen were actually smart enough to notice. Some even did the math to the extent that they realized the fines and suspensions were little more than nuisances to a guy who makes several million dollars a year. The players could never get away with negotiating this good a deal for themselves if the owners were not complicit. After yesterday, I think that's all changed; the public now knows that that players have "get out of jail free" cards written into their contracts.
I personally stopped following baseball, except for occasional encounters with the game, several years ago. A decade of strikes by grown men who get paid a great deal of money to play a kid's game struck me a somewhat retarded. I'm even sicker over it when my favorite sport of hockey is now involved in the same thing. However, I have, in the past couple of years, actually gone to the ballpark and watched a few games, both pro and A-ball. I liked the A-ball game better, since the players there were hustling, diving, sliding and striving; it was fun to watch. I'd rather watch people who are hungry, who want to make a name for themselves, who play hard everyday with enthusiasm than to watch a drug-enhanced, multi-millionaire who won't even try to leg out a ground ball. That's baseball. What we have now, with junkie players and timid owners more concerned with their wallets than their product, is too painful to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)