Author: wolverine writer

I’ve got a shelving unit full of great looking Booman shirts, mugs, and stickers, and you’ve got plenty of room in your wardrobes and cupboards.  We’re offering these basically at cost to help advertise the site, raise some money for the Booman, and to open up some room on my shelves.  So load up, show your appreciation, and look absolutely great doing it!

Shirts and mugs are on sale for $6 each, bumper stickers for $2.
Shipping for 1 item: $4, 2 or more items: $6.

Write out what you are looking for and send the list with a check or money order (please make the checks out to Scott Melinn, it’s a lot easier for us that way) to:

Scott Melinn
644 Westview Ave. NW
Grand Rapids, MI  49504

Be sure to include your shipping address with your order.  We’re out of 2x grey shirts, but we have everything else in stock, white women’s tees medium to 2x and grey men’s medium to 1x.  Keep in mind, the women’s tees run small.

Thanks for your help – Booman and I laid out quite a bit to purchase these items when he started the site, and we could really stand to recoup some of that.  Anything you can do, as always, is much appreciated.

Like most people, I get lots of unsolicited email – this one was forwarded to me by a member of my extended family.  The title of the post was the subject line for the email.
While I don’t specifically agree with much of what is said…I can’t deny that in many ways it vents some of my frustrations and in a somewhat warped way contains some wisdom.  I’ve been hestitating over posting this, but you know what?  I think it represents the thoughts of an awful lot of Americans.  I’ll put the text next and my thoughts on it after, and on this day that may make such an impact on the future of our country and the world, maybe a little reflection is in order.

WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
‘My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short . The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world’s nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT’ll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money t oward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home . On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , Germany , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don’t care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put ’em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty – starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we’ll be drilling for oil in Alaska – which will take care of this country’s oil needs for decades to come. If you’re an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, ‘darn tootin.’

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won’t forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America . Thank you and good night. ‘

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

Can we ‘fix’ Iraq at this point?  I don’t believe so.  Would it be bad to just leave immediately?  It seems the cowardly/wrong thing to do, yet…we may well just be drawing it out, putting off the inevitability of civil war.  If we continue to stay, I think we should at least demand payment for our services – screw ’em if they don’t like it.  Remember when the war effort was going to be funded by Iraq oil (or at least the rebuilding part)?  Sure, we’ll be called every name in the book if we push it, but most of the world hates us anyway and I doubt anyone else would hesitate were they in our shoes, so who really cares?  They can afford to pay, and while we probably should have left them alone in the first place, no other country on earth would be laying out what we are to stay where we are unwanted and failing at providing stabilization.

Should we hold back any type of dealings with those who refused to back our play in Iraq?  I don’t think so – I think they were probably wiser than we were to stay out in the first place.  Should we cut off aid, though – interesting.  Not based on whether they stood by us in this disaster or not, no, but the thought of letting aid from our country be specifically funded by donation…I’m not sure how morally reprehensible that would be, but I know for sure that continuing to write rubber checks is going to cost this nation everything.  It is important to help our fellow humans, but by doing it at the government level we force funding from those here at home who cannot afford it.  Let the non-profits do it, and let the rest of the world pick up the rest of the slack.  Go in and help when there is a UN mission, sure.  Stop trying to control the whole fipping planet through money, political power, and military force – we can’t possibly keep up the pace we’ve had and we’ve never been able to control everything anyway.  Accept the fact that other places in the world have other views and leave them alone.

Get out of NATO, the UN, international cooperatives?  No.  Get in, buy in, push your agenda within the strictures and play by the flipping rules of the organization.  WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING, OUR NATIONALISTIC VIEWS ARE NOT A BLUEPRINT FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.  Get in line and tow the line just like everyone else.  If others cheat/circumvent, call them on it, but take the high road and play by the rules as long as no one is actually invading.

Tow the Beamers, jail the Princes, etc.?  You bet.  Work to change the international courts if that is what we need to do, if we want to more closely align with our system of justice, then buy in and live with it.  If we do that, we don’t have to extend diplomatic immunity to anyone, because we don’t need it ourselves.  At the very least, we need to have something in place that will allow us to prosecute those who come to our country and commit felonies.  They deserve their day in court, and their victims deserve to see them brought to justice.

Canada – real bummer about the drop in the value of the dollar, huh?  All these years and yours is finally worth what ours is, and low and behold, that hurts you too.  I don’t mind our neighbors to the north – just don’t be so stinking snide about things.

Mexico – I’m down with patrolling the border, I’d rather see our troops there than in Iraq.  Realistically, we can’t truly seal the border, so lets try to make the changes necessary for people to want to stay in Mexico.  And yes, it starts with straightening out a government that is actually more corrupt than ours, which is saying a lot.

Dump NAFTA?  I don’t think so.  We cannot stand as an island.  Its a tough pill right now with everything else kicking us around, but over time NAFTA will do us good.  You don’t like all those jobs going out of the country and all those cheap sweat-shop goods coming in?  Then stop buying all that cheap stuff.  Talk to your family, your nieghbors, everyone you meet, tell them to spend their money on goods made by workers who are treated humanely.  You want to keep your job?  Then suck it up and truly do your best, and tell the person next to you to do the same.  There isn’t a whole lot of pride taken in the production of goods in this country any more.  

Should we drill for oil in Alaska?  Tough question.  I’d sign on if we tied mandatory alternative fuel research to the extraction and imposed the strictest of rules on getting it out of the ground.  In the end, its going to get pulled out – why not try to do it as eco-friendly as possible, with a plan in place to get us off the overseas oil and move toward other energy sources?  Everyone is going to run out of it eventually – why not try to be smart about it?

I believe that we have bent over backwards in many ways to help the rest of the world, and I believe that by and large we are hated by the rest of the world.  Why?  Well, we not only did some wonderful things, we did some awful ones too.  Guess what?  It isn’t our job to play global police man, and while we still have the military to do it we already can’t afford too.  In time we won’t have all that much military superiority, either.  Time to suck it up and stop trying to control everything directly – work the angles in the various internationl organizations.

And yes, as always, we need to remember who stood with us in times of strife.  But in the instance of Iraq this time around, we were stupid, and have been proven to be so.  If Russia had invaded Iraq, would we have been there for them?  Why do we want to punish those who showed more restraint?

Is all this overly simplistic?  Tunnel-view thinking?  Sure, I guess so.  But we cannot continue to go down the path we are on, and we need to right our ship before we can sail over and pull others out of the water.  If I were voting in Congress I do not believe that I would support anything done with deficit spending.  Stop borrowing money, no matter how painful that is, and stop giving our money away to other countries until we have some to give.  The private sector will step up and continue to provide at least some world wide relief, and you know what?  Until we actually have money to spend as a country, we don’t have anything to give.

I can tell you, I understand why people write this stuff and pass it around.  It is hard right now for the average American, hard for me and most everyone else.  We MUST stop spending what we don’t have, and we must help ourselves before we can help others.

It pains me a great deal to write that.  I just came home from a restaurant, and my neighbor had taken down my block M and put their MSU flag on my house in its place.  I can’t even begin to tell you how much that hurts – at least my boys got out of the van and ran right over there to give them grief.

So, Martin, this diary is for you.  I know you feel some of my pain, being a Wolverine fan yourself, but I know you’re a huge Lions fan too.  So…

YOU SAY NITTANY

My door to Lakeshore in just under 2:30 – not bad from Grand Rapids. Booman in Chi town, I couldn’t let that go without getting out to see him, though I didn’t have much time to give.  I got there in a light rain, with Lollapalooza making a mess of the streets.  Took me anther 40 minutes just to work my way around to McCormick place once I hit Lakeshore…Boo walked out the doors with a cup of coffee in hand and we drove up to park in the hotel’s lot.  I relieved him of his cup, needed the pick me up.  We wandered in and walked through the ground floor, and then I saw the ballroom.  Lots of people seated, someone speaking, applause.  We continued to walk that way.

“You suck.  You played me.”
“I knew you wouldn’t come if I told you you were crashing.”
“I don’t have a badge or anything.”
“Doesn’t matter.  I have a seat for you, and I’m going to get you ice cream.  The ice cream is really good.”
“I don’t need ice cream.  I need food.  I told you I was going to arrive hungry.  Is the seat at the back?”
“No, right in the middle.”
“You suck.  I hate you.”
“Dude, its no big deal.”
“It’s not a big deal to you.  I’m uncomfortable.  Let’s get in there.”

I held tight to the coffee cup, and kept up some running chatter while we sailed through the door past the security person posted there.  Couldn’t help thinking it was a good thing for Markos that I wasn’t a heavily armed nut with an axe to grind.

There was a comedian onstage when we came in.  I don’t remember her name, but I thought she was pretty entertaining, very droll.  My seat was indeed right in the middle of the room, just in front of the cameras.  I sat where Boo pointed, while he plopped down across the table from me.  I didn’t even bother glaring at him for dragging me into this and then sticking me between some people I didn’t know – at least, not until he got up and disappeared for 15 minutes to get ice cream.  I gave him the evil eye when he got back to the table, then he realized there were no spoons and went to get those.  I have to admit, it was good, as advertised.

Markos said lots of the right things, talking about pulling together, setting aside differences to achieve common goals.  Talked about having done nothing more than starting a website, having no idea it would become what it has.  It was a good speech, well rehearsed, well delivered.  I couldn’t help feeling that he was pretty pompous, though.  The man making the speech just didn’t equal up to the man who posts all those acidic comments on his site, shredding people and slathering derision on so many of the views that are advanced there.  Kos is what it is, and if you don’t want to do battle it is to be avoided – or stick to lurking.  I don’t enjoy it even as a lurker, I don’t see the value is ripping people’s views apart the way they are there.  Disagreement, sure, reasoned discourse, absolutely – but the ugliness I see there I have no wish to be a part of.

After Markos was done speaking people headed out into the lobby, bar, terrace.  There was no food to be had that I could see, and I mentioned that several times to Booman during the course of the evening (he took no pity on me, I might add.  Putz.).  I met a number of people whom I recognized from BT, which was very cool.  I spent over an hour talking with Mary from St. Louis, who I found to be very entertaining.  I had fun, and we didn’t head out until 2 am.  Up early to have breakfast the next morning with Booman (finally, food) and then back down around the lake home.

I didn’t really feel at home there.  People were friendly, but when I talked with them and they found out that I posted very little they were by and large uninterested in talking with me.  I didn’t really go in expecting anything, because I didn’t really go there to attend anything, but I wasn’t as impressed as I expected to be (retrospect).  I wish that I had attended the whole thing; I think I would have enjoyed it.  But I can’t help but feel like there is a bit of an elitist air, a small portion of snobbery within the netroots that puts the average person off.  The average person does not blog – that is the reality.  This is a forum like no other for commenting on/being involved in the political process, and I sense that it already feels cliquish.  Don’t get me wrong, people are welcomed here at the pond with open arms, but I don’t know that that is the norm at other sites, or that open arms via welcome wagon equates to support for members in a general sense.  I’m having a hard time saying what I want to say here.  I guess it’s just this: I’m involved here to an extent.  But if I’m not really comfortable here, how can we make it so that others, newbie’s, are?  I’m talking across the liberal, democratic blogosphere here.  If we really want to be able to help chart policy, help influence elections, we need to swell the rolls.  Numbers count.  Getting those other voices, bringing new people onboard, this is important.  How do we accomplish that?  Or am I off base; is it even possible to do more than we do in this regard, should we even be trying?  I don’t know.  I just know that very few of the people I know would feel comfortable coming here to post, and if they aren’t comfortable to do that, then they don’t have much reason to come here.

Anyway, I enjoyed meeting all those who I did, and I’ve forgiven Booman (I’ve actually dragged him into much worse situations in the past).  I’ll continue to torture him for it going forward, though; such is the prerogative of old friends.  Good to see you, bro.

Every time it’s time to go to the polls, this question comes to my mind–should those with criminal convictions/those who are incarcerated be allowed to vote?  I know it’s different state to state–in Alabama, where I resided from 10/02-3/05, priorly convicted felons must petition the court to have their right to vote reinstated.  In Michigan, this is what the state has to say (from michigan.gov/vote)

MCL 168.492a reads: “A person confined in a jail, who is otherwise a qualified elector, prior to trial or sentence may, upon request, register under section 504. The person shall be deemed a resident of the city, township, and address at which he resided before confinement. A person while confined in a jail after being convicted and sentenced shall not be eligible to register.”
MCL 168.758b reads: “A person who, in a court of this or another state or in a federal court, has been legally convicted and sentenced for a crime for which the penalty imposed is confinement in jail or prison shall not vote, offer to vote, attempt to vote, or be permitted to vote at an election while confined.”
Given the above restrictions, a Michigan resident confined in jail or prison that is awaiting arraignment or trial is eligible to register and vote. A Michigan resident who is serving a sentence in jail or prison after conviction cannot register or vote during his or her period of confinement. After a Michigan resident who is serving a sentence in jail or prison is released, he or she is free to participate in elections without restriction.

I’m interested in what the restrictions are, if any, in your neck of the woods, and how you feel about it.

I posted a diary last Friday that, in my opinion, had nothing to do with abortion.  However, lots of discussion ensued, and I was unable to continue responding after a time.  I have attempted to respond to all comments made that I did not initially respond to in the threads.  I am not an expert, and I did not come prepared then or now to discuss this topic, though I have tried to be open minded and consistent with what I believe.  I have learned a lot from this, and I hope you have too.  I do not think that I will be able to respond to anything written in this post, and for that I apologize–if I can get away for a bit after the kids are in bed I will, but I don’t think that will happen.  The link to the initial diary is here:  

Hopefully it will work.–OK, I can’t figure out what the proper html codes are to put a link here, but if you go to my diaries it is titled: Living in a House Divided

Everything in italics below is a comment posted in response to the initial diary.

Pro Life People are Fetus Killers
The pro-life, anti-abortion people happily allow hundreds of thousands or millions of fetuses to die every year because, like all the rest of us, they believe the fetuses are not human life equal in rights to the postborn.
The failure rates of fertilized eggs are very high. If anyone at any time in history truly believed that fertilized eggs are “humans” then they’d have to have supported profound restructuring of virtually all social and scientific prioritities. Humanity has known the signs and rough probabilities of pregnancy since before civilization. We’ve had 10,000 years or more to make this the #1 human health priority it should be if any culture or God had ever truly asserted that fertilized eggs == people.
But they haven’t done it because they don’t believe it.
Furthermore there isn’t even the massive maternal care movement that would at least save thousands of “deaths” and perhaps hundreds of thousands of maimings annually due to all sorts of maternal life stress, rigors of employment and nutritional & maternal medical care that the right to “life” movement has not been flooding the streets to demand we address.
So the fetus=person argument is a fraud.
Since we’ve all agreed all along that fetuses are not fully entitled human beings, and all sides have always been willing to let them die by the thousands from neglect, I don’t see any morality left in the abortion “issue” except for government support of organized religious authoritarianism.

I would say two things to this:  One, I don’t consider myself “pro-life”.  To the best of my knowledge (admittedly limited) I don’t fit the definition.  
Two, your logic appears to me to be flawed–you appear to be saying that pro-life people a) pro-life people don’t put any priority on issues concerning the mother to be during pregnancy and b) are therefore responsible for avoidable deaths and c) therefore do not truly believe that a fetus is a person.  Again, I do not consider myself “pro-life”, and I will not attempt to speak for them here, but what you wrote here is definitely not an example of a+b=c.  Flawed logic.

Re: On the legality of abortion (none / 0)
If society were willing to prosecute the male in the scenario, then society would also have to establish the rights of the male in the scenario.  You can’t hold someone resposible for an abortion when they have no say over whether or not an abortion will take place.
I’m sure that after Mr Alito is confirmed he’ll do his best to make quite certain that men own the bodies of their wives and daughters. That said, it’s not the abortion the male would be responsible for, it’s the pregnancy. Now there’s a concept.

I cannot speak for Alito, and personally hope that he does not end up on the court.  I can say that in my opinion, the male shares equal responsibility (or should, at least) for every single thing that results from the act, with exception of the things that he cannot–the actual bearing of a child until birth.  Anything less on the part of the male in the scenario is unacceptable.

I find it hard to believe that in your state a wife’s legal consent for a husband’s vasectomy is required. If you have a cite for that I’d love to see it. It would be news to me.

Again, I had no intention of having a debate about abortion, I was not prepared when I posted the diary and I am not really prepared now.  I looked a little on the web and found some references to this, mostly relating to Michigan where I live but not exclusively.  In the limited time that I was able to dedicate, I did not find a conclusive link that I can provide.  I stated this in the threads based on my personal experience: My wife and I discussed vasectomy with my doctor and said that indeed spousal consent was required.  That is all I can offer on this, though I believe it to be true.

The reason that a married woman can get an abortion without the consent of her husband is easily explained. The supreme court has ruled husband consent laws are unconstitutional in our democracy.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that requiring a woman to obtain her husband’s consent prior to an abortion is unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 67-72 (1976).

I accept and live with supreme court rulings every day of my life–as do you.  I don’t agree with all of them, and I don’t agree with this one–much as I suspect you wouldn’t agree with a court ruling that overturned Roe.  Easily explained is one thing, “right” in my estimation is another.  My opinion, of course, nothing more.  Here’s the crux of it for me–everyone is so concerned about men not taking responsibility for their part in a pregnancy.  I am 100% for men taking responsibility, always have been.  If you say that, though, you have to grant the man some rights.  I’m not saying he gets to choose whether or not a woman bears his child once the egg is fertilized.  I struggle with that, I’m unsure in my own mind.  But unequvically, once that child is born, the male has responsibilities and rights.

I also don’t really “get” a sense of equivalence between the health/morbidity risks and the damage to a woman’s body involved in a 9 month pregnancy compared to the same risks/damage from a vasectomy procedure. Can you explain what you mean?

I can’t explain what I mean because I don’t understand where you came up with that from what I wrote.  I certainly never intended to draw a corollary between pregnancy and vasectomy.

[new] Re: Living in a House Divided (none / 0)
As stated previously, if I am incorrect, it was not done in any way to mislead or muddle the issue.
Ya, but this is something you could research and discover what is actually true for yourself.
Much of your argument is predicated on the notion that such services are readily available to women everywhere in your state and the country and that poverty is no obstacle to personal responsibility. Whereas the reality most of us deal with is that any sort of medical care including access to contraceptives is difficult for low income women to access. It is, you see, a central premise of your arguments, not a peripheral issue.

You are right, I could research it for myself (and, thankfully, some have done some for me, see below, and many thanks) but I do not have the time.  As stated, I did not post about abortion–I posted about voters coming over to vote for the Dem pres candidate next election without making any major changes to the platform.  Apparently, if you include the word “abortion” in any post in any way the response I saw was typical.  I did not know this.  I could easily have used “gay rights” or something else to make my point in the initial post.  I still believe that a careful read of what I initially posted supports this.

I know that I read about groups handing out condoms in public schools in Texas, and how the religious right is having a cow.  I know from personal experience that here where I live groups are falling all over themselves to provide free contraceptives.  Even with what other people wrote and researched, no one seems to be claiming that at the root this is incorrect–as far as I can see, even now, if you live in the states and you want free contraceptives, they are available.  Yes, what is available may not work for you.  Yes, you may have to go out of your way to get these free contraceptives.  Yes, they may screw up the “freedom of the moment” or lead to a fight with your prospective lover, but they are available.  Just as food is available to the hungry and healthcare is available to the sick, contraceptives are out there free of charge.  We don’t excuse people for stealing food because it’s a twenty block walk to the soup kitchen, and they have to eat.  Why would we excuse people for not taking the necessary steps to procure contraceptives?  Yes, there are many circumstances in which it would be exceptionally difficult, but remember, I am only writing in relation to consenting adults who live in the states.  And I am only representing my own thoughts and feelings.

[new] Re: Thank you for the shift, though I (none / 0)
In fact, I’m pretty sure that somewhere along the line I’ve made a case for the responsibility of the male.
No you have not, I always read these threads with particular attention to the balance of that bias and, while you may have inserted a partial sentence addressing male responsibility you’ve mostly been addressing male rights. Indeed I daresay that any single young man averaging, say, 5 or 10 different partners a years and reading this thread would have worked his way up to a state of indignation about the horrendous irresponsibility of women in general. As usual in discussions about abortion the notion that male behavior is in any sense responsible has been given the lightest of rhetorical cover.

Doesn’t this next quote you pulled from what I wrote (which, by the way, is in no way the only reference I made to the responsibility of the male) itself render what you wrote here invalid?

How someone could hold the woman soley responsible, or consider them sinful or leave them to fend for themselves is beyond me.
Look, the culture does this. What else was welfare ‘reform’ about? Why do you think we have the highest child poverty rates of any of the industrialized nation? Why are the bulk of the poor in this country women and their children? What do you think the child support compliance rate is? And were you under the impression that there’s any male involvement or support in the vast majority of OOW births in this country? Were you aware that the House republicans just cut 5 billion in funding for child support enforcement from the federal budget? How insane is it that we spend billions of dollars trying to get (mostly) men to support the children they’ve been responsible for bringing into the world? And where do you get off attacking with false piety some woman you don’t know for her ‘personal view of men’ when she’s trying to address what is a bias large enough to drive a Mac truck through?

I can appreciate some of the rant above.  As I have repeatedly stated, all the time and effort poured into defeating/defending Roe would be much better spent on education and improving the circumstances of those in the situation.  The way, by and large, these issues are treated is a crime, and it needs to improve–drastically.  I have never said different.  Many of the issues you raise could be reduced significantly if there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, which is attainable to a greater or lesser degree.
As far as “attacking with false piety”, I don’t believe that you have the right to judge my motives or my thoughts any more than I have the right to judge yours.  What you see is what you get–I have no hidden agenda.  I stand by what I wrote, and condemning the actions of all men due to the actions of some is not acceptable.

* [new] Re: Living in a House Divided (none / 0)
Yes, I truly do celebrate the right for a woman to an abortion.  If a woman had an easier alternative at the time I believe she would take it (given not only the cost of abortion but also the in-my-opinion immoral roadblocks put in her path in trying to obtain it), so it’s always the “last resort” but often also the “best alternative”.

The wording in your response is interesting.  I did not ask if you “celebrated the right for a woman to an abortion”, I asked “Do you truly celebrate abortion?”.  I can understand celebrating the right to an abortion, but that is not what I was getting at.  You state “If a woman had an easier alternative at the time”, but the issue I am raising goes beyond the specific timing of the decision to abort–sure, after the fact, an abortion may be the best alternative, for many reasons.  My point is the overall timing of the effort to avoid birth of an unwanted child–what is the best alternative, use of contraceptives or abortion?  Again, I have yet to see anyone claim that they would choose abortion given the choice.  I know that I could be accused of oversimplifying the issue–but to make my point, and to have people relate, they would need to understand it.  My point is not that abortion is never necessary or is never the best choice–my point is that it is worth a lot of effort on the front side–including all the extra legwork necessary in some states–to procure and use contraceptives to avoid the “necessity” of an abortion in the first place.

[new] Not-bad does not equal good (none / 0)
WW, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and willingness to engage, but the basic point in my subject header seems to be one you consistently fail to grasp (at least in this context). To those who claim not to share your disquiet about abortion, your response is, “Do you really think, then, that it’s a good thing — something to be ‘celebrated’?”
Answer: neither. Denying that it is intrinsically “bad” (albeit at times, regrettably, necessary) does not commit one to holding that it is intrinsically “good” (to be celebrated).
The way you’ve set things up, the only alternative to your position that abortions are to be deplored (on moral grounds) is that they are to be cheered (on moral grounds). Wrong, wrong, wrong, WW.
To cast your interlocutor as committed to the view that abortion is “good” is to impose upon her/him the strange view that abortions are things to be promoted — there should be as many abortions as possible (other things being equal). I know that’s not what you intend, but that’s a consequence of the overly restrictive range of possible stances you allow for.
Please consider this.

First, see above.  Then, again, my point is not that they are bad, but that they are largely avoidable, that we are in large part lazy, that the extra effort to avoid the situation is worth it on so many fronts.  Why is it necessary?  Why can we not make a much better effort, in every possible way?  I have only tried–repeatedly–to break it down to the simplest question and then build from there–is it the best alternative?  I simply cannot believe that we cannot all agree that it is not the best alternative.  It’s as if people think that by agreeing with that statement they are agreeing to other things–and they are not.  Simplest common denominator, and work from there–that is all I am trying to accomplish with the question.

WW, you say that “everyone alive could agree that abortion is ‘bad.'” I see statements like that a lot and I always feel the need to jump in and say, Ahem, I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect assumption. I think you can see just from this diary alone the evidence for an opposite conclusion.  Lots of people do not think it’s bad.
I, for instance, do not think it’s bad, and that is probably because I don’t share the religious and/or philosophical beliefs of those who do. I’m not here to argue those beliefs, I just want to let you know that it isn’t true that “everyone alive could agree that abortion is bad.”

You know, I went through what I wrote again, and I can’t find a single instance in which I said that abortion was “bad”.  I did say that it is not the best option, in several different ways.  So unless I missed it, I guess I just don’t have anything to say about this.

What is a man’s role in your eyes?  How would you feel about making vasectomies readily-available and covered by insurance (in my own relationship, it was not covered and we had to pay out-of-pocket to have it done)?  Do you see such a program as a moral imperative in the interest of preventing pregnancy until the man is ready and able to father children, or does the moral burden for preventing pregnancy fall onto the woman?

I really wish that vasectomies were readily available and covered by insurance.  I was going to get one, but our last child came c-section, so my wife decided to have things taken care of on her end while they were in there.

As I’ve stated before “I can say that in my opinion, the male shares equal responsibility (or should, at least) for every single thing that results from the act, with exception of the things that he cannot–the actual bearing of a child until birth.  Anything less on the part of the male in the scenario is unacceptable.”  I mean that, every word.  I was quite promiscuous when I was young, and I can say a few personal things here.  One woman became pregnant, and it was the only time I wasn’t prepared (it figures).  I was 18, and in love with someone else–doesn’t say much for where I was at at the time, and I’m not making any excuses.  What she wanted to hear from me was that I loved her and wanted to marry her, but I told her the truth.  I also told her that I thought she should have the child and give it up for adoption.  She refused, and asked me to help pay for the abortion, which I did.  Not a good thing, but there it is.  Another woman, who I was in love with, became pregnant, and I was happy–but I was also in trouble with the law.  We did not end up together, but I was there for her as much as I could be (being incarcerated for a time) and always after.  We had, hands down, the best “situation” with having a daughter that was part of both of our lives.  When our daughter was four, her mother got married, and I encouraged her to go to friend of the court–something that had not been necessary.  She did not want to, but I convinced her, and when she went I had my daughter’s birth certificate changed to reflect that I was her father.  I have never for a minute regretted my daughter, and I miss her now so much I can at times barely function.  I now have three little ones at home, and I love them above all others just as I did their big sister.  So I have a little bit of experience, shall we say, despite the fact that below you state that I have no rights when it comes to a child I’ve helped conceive:

I give “not a nod of respect” (your words, but not necessarily how I would phrase it) to how anyone else feels about it morally because another person’s moral point of view does not supercede mine when it comes to my body and my rights, nor should it trump any woman’s.  I am completely and utterly unapologetic about my unwillingness to put another’s views before my own in this regard…and in regards to me and my rights, you have NO ground to stand on.  None at all.

From what I read here, you put your rights above all others, not women’s rights.  “…unapologetic about my unwillingness to put another’s views before my own in this regard…and in regards to me and my rights, you have NO ground to stand on.”  You see, I’ve never tried to trample your rights.  The problem here is this:  You assume (in fact, boldly state) that your rights take precedent, which is in fact the same thing you accuse me of doing.  None of us gets to decide for the other, we have to reach a concensus and move from there.  I never claimed to have ground to stand on in regards to you, personally, and you rejecting any rights I may have out of hand is unacceptable.  Neither of us is more important than the other, and neither of us has the power, responsibility, or authority to decide for the other.  However, when we choose to discount the viewpoint of another, we’ve done a disservice to them and lessened our argument in the bargain.

How about talking about the war, or the economy, or the state of modern education?  How about government corruption (i.e. is it there and what should be done about it, as well as who is culpable and who is not).  I have no interest in anti-choice voters, or even choice-ambiguous voters (since there is nothing that I would be willing to compromise on to try and sway them), but if we discuss other areas maybe we can find common ground for dialogue.

There is much to discuss, and I would love to, and will when I can.  I will say, though, that imho it is a good thing that your disinterest in “…anti-choice voters, or even choice-ambiguous voters” does not extend to the majority of the Democratic party.  I do not think that any election will ever be winnable for the Dems without some of them.

[new] MI fact check on “free” contraception (4.00 / 3)
this is from the University of Michigan, Olin Health Center

Thanks for writing to Bodyline! We are assuming that you are wondering where you can get free birth control pills, and not other forms of birth control such as condoms, etc.

Planned Parenthood offers birth control pills for $12-$19 dollars a month, where you would also have to pay for an office visit.
The number in East Lansing is 333-6744 and in Lansing is 351-0550. Some doctor’s offices will give out a couple months of birth control pills as free samples, and then you pay for the rest. Otherwise, you could try getting an extended supply from your own local clinic. Hope this information helps, and don’t hesitate to write Bodyline again with any more questions or concerns you may have!
The following is from the Planned Parenthood, Northern Michigan online store:

Where you can purchase pill refills, condoms and other Planned Parenthood products online, 24 hours a day.
Pricing example:
One pack (month) of your current prescription.
Price: $ 17.00
Low cost birth control, to be sure. But then there’s the problem of locating a clinic. Even if there was free birth control in Michigan, (which I cannot verify at all) access is an important factor.
PP Houghton closes doors

 After two years of highly charged debate over the presence of a Planned Parenthood office in downtown Houghton, the center closed its doors last week.
 “While we recognize the need for affordable family planning services in the Copper Country, our Houghton Center simply hasn’t served enough clients to justify the monthly costs to keep it going,” said Executive Director/CEO of Planned Parenthood Northern Michigan Scott Blanchard.
Protestors opposed to the clinic walked the sidewalks outside the clinic most weeks for the two years the clinic was in business. Groups like Copper Country Pro-Life found fault with the organization’s pro-choice stance, and specifically with its dispensing of emergency contraception and referrals to abortion clinics.
Some feel that the protestors had an effect on clients to the clinic, therefore causing its closing.
Students who were using Planned Parenthood for low-cost contraceptives or STD testing are encouraged to visit their website at http://www.PPexpress.org where they can continue to order their prescriptions.
At last count there were 29 Planned Parenthood mailing addresses in the state of Michigan,  a state with a 2004 population estimate of 10,112,620.
By the way, no offense but at least two of your facts appear to be hearsay.

Our Word Where the women kossacks went
[new] Re: Living in a House Divided (4.00 / 2)
In all fairness, since you didn’t come prepared for a discussion on abortion, the following is from the Detroit Health Department site:
The Detroit Health Department offers free family planning and birth control to all, regardless of insurance status, ability to pay or age.   Free pregnancy testing is also available.  Parental consent is not required for minors.  All services are confidential.
Birth control services and free pregnancy testing are available at all Detroit Health Department health centers.  You can call for an appointment.  Most of the time, same day appointments can be arranged at one of our health centers.  The Herman Kiefer Family Health Center also accepts walk-ins for family planning and pregnancy testing.  If you are pregnant and uninsured, a referral can be made for prenatal care.
It might be “city-related” versus rural, but this shows that the services do, in fact, exist.
[new] Re: Living in a House Divided (none / 0)
It might be “city-related” versus rural, but this shows that the services do, in fact, exist.
Thank for the reference. I would love to know who funds this. Detroit is a good place to have such a service, it is the large city which has, as I recall, the greatest number of low income per capita residents in the country. Clearly if we wish to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions these sliding scale services should be far more widespread.
My point in addressing his claim that such services are nationwide was in part to point out that this just isn’t true. At least the only the only places I know of where contraception is easily available to the poor is in a few large cities.
* [new] Re: Living in a House Divided (none / 1)
Yes, I certainly thought that original comment was painted with one big ol’ industrial sized brush. And I agree with you – if there’s anywhere for those service to exist, that’s a damn good place for them.
(pssst . . .as an aside, the broadly brushed comment is what prompted me to look into the services. I’ve never heard of such a thing, and I was admittedly surprised with my findings. I can’t imagine these same services duplicated throughout the country – especially in places like the rural south.)

Again, thanks to those of you who did this research–I appreciate it.  All I can say is, as I stated before: “…as far as I can see, even now, if you live in the states and you want free contraceptives, they are available.”

* [new] Re: Living in a House Divided (none / 0)
“Very few professional woman have this problem.”
Funny you should mention that. There’s a whole different level of power and choices I rarely see discussed. Specifically, I know firsthand of two “professional women”, both married, and both of whom had husbands who didn’t want children. And yet, through miracles of biblical proportions, both of those “professional women” got pregnant and subsequently gave birth to the child. Later on, the cause of those “miracles” (or perhaps “accidents”, if you prefer) came to light, when both of the women confided in me that they purposely got pregnant without the knowledge of their husbands.
While maybe not the norm, there seems to be a bit of one-sided power in that equation. And a lack of choice for one of the parties in each of those marriages.  
     Good day!

I think the above sheds some light, offers a little perspective.  Talk about having the final say, against the will of those involved–I think the ladies hold the keys in this scenario, don’t you?  I also think you would have a hard time lining up two people in the country who would be willing to admit that they think these women did something “wrong”–but let the men in such a scenario admit they poked holes in condoms to accomplish the same thing, and….well, I think you can see where I’m going.  

* [new] I’ve said this before (none / 0)
and I’m going to keep saying it:
When a man sticks his penis in a woman HE IS CHOOSING TO POTENTIALLY BECOME A FATHER. He is surrendering HIS future to the vagaries of hormones, latex and the phases of the moon. Oh, and he’s surrendering TO HER.
That’s it. That’s his time to “choose” … he surrenders after that point. After that, the choices are the woman’s to make. His only choice after that point is: is he a man of honor who lives w/ the results of his choices, or is he a bully and a coward who refuses to do so?

I’ll say this: When a woman allows a man to stick his penis in her, she is choosing to potentially become a mother.  She is surrendering to all listed above, and to him.  Imho, a man does not then give up all rights.  Again, I am not saying that I think the law should be changed so that woman can’t get an abortion–I’m saying that you are painting with way too big a brush.

Ok, I guess that’s it, I tried to get to everybody that I couldn’t get to when the comments were happening.  I haven’t drafted this at all, I don’t have time, so I hope I didn’t say anything that I didn’t mean too.  I’m not going to have time to get involved here, and I apologize–I rarely post, but when I do I think it important to respond to what people have to say.  I didn’t expect to get on this topic, I’ve tried to lay out what I think in response to what all of you wrote.  I still don’t understand why any of you really care what I think about all this anyway, but here it is, from the “for what it’s worth” department.

I did get some response to the actual points I was trying to make in the initial diary, and will post separately in future about those.

I do appreciate all the input–I learn and grow here at BT, just as you do.  All the best.

My wife and I basically cancel out each other’s votes at the polls.  I decided that she needed to drive herself years ago, so I didn’t have to see any Republican/Catholic/Whatever voting guide in her hand while we were standing there waiting to vote.  I can remember standing in line some years back, and stage whispering to my infant son “Don’t look at what mommy is holding, it’s evil”.  The rest of those in line found it pretty amusing, but it can be pretty tough to live with (and raise children with) someone who votes so much differently than you do.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’ve voted for the odd Republican candidate, and I will again–and she’s voted for the odd Democrat.  The problem is I find it hard to understand why she votes so differently than I do.  Similar background, same city, same age, but such different voting history.  Our views on most things really aren’t that different, but the way we translate those views to votes…well, not much similarity there.

The bottom line, I think, for her is this:  All politicians are lying, conniving, special interest hacks who are going to make a mess of things, so why not vote for the swine that best (claim to) represent my views on key issues?

I have to say that I can understand that to an extent.  My wife’s not blind, she’s not stupid, and she understands that there are an awful lot of things this administration is guilty of.  And to be honest, I think that given another chance she might change her vote, considering what a mess we’re in.  But this is the thing: I think that there are an awful lot of “Republicans” just like her.  They grew up being fed the “fact” that Democrats were pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-gay rights, pro this, anti that–when in reality, there are no clean divisions on these issues along party lines.  (For the record, it’s the pro-abortion issue that is it for her).  I can’t argue that abortion is “good”, it isn’t.  I think that at face value, everyone alive could agree that abortion is “bad”.  The problem with that statement is that it is way too black and white–for all the usual reasons.  I wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade, though I feel so badly about all that destruction of human life (potential human life, whatever).  I tend to see myself as a realist, though, and reality is this:  We know how to perform abortions.  Therefore, abortions will be performed.  Therefore, to avoid further harm to the species, we need it to be legal and regulated.  No coat hangers, people, and hopefully less teen suicides.

You see, my wife will not/cannot look past the principle of the issues to the effects on society.  Abortion is wrong, casual drug use is wrong, prostitution is wrong, etc.  She believes the rhetoric that states that legalization leads to more abortions, and follows that logic to the easy conclusion that making the act illegal will result in less destruction of human life.  I actually believe that part of this is true–we probably do have more abortions due to the fact that it is legal.  That “fact” (if it is indeed such) makes me feel sick, but I still wouldn’t change the legality of the act.  Prevention, education, dissemination of information–as with all “social problems/ills”, time and money is best spent on the front end.  Legalize prostitution, regulate it, and spend the money generated to teach people positive ways to avoid becoming involved.  Legalize recreational drug use, regulate it, teach the little kids (and I mean little) how messed up people strung out on drugs really are.  Leave Roe v Wade alone, and spend the millions and millions used to try and overturn it on prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  Stop trying to litigate morality, give people the information they need to make informed choices in their lives.

Take the current administration.  I think that there is a core issue here for many Republican “voters” who are not “political”, not part of the blind Republican base:  If they admit that the administration they voted for is evil, they feel they have some culpability.  My wife does not want to hear about what the administration is up to or how evil they are or anything else–agreeing to any of my views is tantamount to being guilty of something.  When I rant about the corrupt trash in the white house at this point, she feels like I’m personally attacking her.  On the other hand, if I keep my mouth shut about it, she attacks the administration herself from time to time.  Talk about stress in a relationship…

Ok, I’m officially off topic.  Like it or not, a large part of the voting Republican base is made up of people who want a “person of faith” to represent them.  Like it or not, these same people do not want America “subsidizing abortion”, “legitimatizing prostitution”, etc. etc.  Like it or not, we have to win at least some of them over to win a presidential election in this country.  Oh, I have no doubt that if every eligible voter were forced to vote that the Democratic candidate would win almost all the time, but it doesn’t work that way.  They have to actually get off their collective asses and get to the polls to pull that off, and we’re not going to see 100% turn out in any of our lifetimes.

We don’t have to go “Republican-lite”, but we do have to be firm, solid.  The Republicans can afford to be wishy-washy, they can afford to switch mid-stream, they can do lots of things Democrats can’t.  I believe the reason is this:  The Republican base of actual voters is too solid for many of them to be swayed, and these people vote.  Many of them want to be led, want to be told how to vote, how to think, how to live.  They find comfort in giving over their persons to their leaders–they do what they are told, and then they have no further responsibility.  They don’t have to think for themselves.  Even better, because it’s all in the name of the church/God, they get to go to heaven for doing it.  Democratic leaders, on the other hand, can’t afford to mix their messages and get elected–their base, by and large, isn’t as blind and accepting.  Many of them will vote for third party candidates, for Republicans, or not at all, if they are turned off by the Democratic candidate.  We need to be strong, have a focused message, stand for something and stay with it.  I’m not saying a leader can’t change his mind–I am saying that they can’t try to play both sides of an issue.  Possible Democratic voters are looking for integrity, a voice that is different than that of the Republicans.  Someone who is not afraid to take a stand, take a risk, accept the possibility of pissing off a segment of the population for the greater good.  Ross Perot garnered a pretty big chunk of the vote by basically saying “This is me, this is my plan, I believe in it, and I’m not backing down.”  He pulled votes from all types of people, who vote in all different types of ways.  He was not qualified to lead this country, but I think there is a lesson there that was not learned by either party–people want change, people want honesty, people want someone to stand up and be counted.  The American public wants a leader–and I know that if my wife saw a Democrat who fit that bill she’d vote for them, no matter what their stance on abortion was.  Hell, for that matter, if McCain had run last time I might have voted for him over Kerry.

I cannot continue with this discussion at this time–my children need me during the day. Feel free to comment away amongst yourselves–I will post again tonight and attempt to answer all comments directed my way.

I am not sure how we got to the whole abortion issue here, or why any of you care what I think about the whole thing, but apparently you do. So I will make the effort tonight–if you are available and wish to be part of the discussion then, please do so.

I am also going to separately post in answer to comments made about voters, which was actually what I posted about in the first place–because I feel strongly about what I said. Again, of course, you may comment all you like now and join in later if you wish.

Thank you for participating–I appreciate all the input. Much food for thought.

We have been so fortunate in the outpouring of love and support for our two families in our time of need.

Now, though, the ugly is coming to the fore.  Offers from lawyers of questionable reputation have started to arrive in the mail.  We went around them, looked up someone through family, but I am unimpressed with them as well.  

It’s little things, really.  On the phone they were helpful, but when we get there they ascertain that we are likely only due the state minimum 20k death benefit as the driver only had pl&pd.  Suddenly we have “homework” to do (his term) basically digging up the stuff they should be checking on.  That is fine, and I can accept that they want us to do most of the legwork–after all, they don’t expect to get paid.  But they looked pretty disinterested once we got to that point, and they threw some extra business cards at Nicki’s step dad towards the end, when they knew each of us already had one.  It was a little thing, but it pissed me off–I’m sure I’m too sensitive in this situation, but it almost seemed like he was saying that referral business might be the only use we represented to him. They did mention that we should check our personal insurance policies, something I was not aware of, and that if we had the right coverage they would be happy to take our case. They said they would check a few things, anyway, and if they don’t they will not be getting any business from us.  Like making a call to the county official who stated that the truck was on a “no-truck road”, whatever he meant by that.  I checked my policy, and low and behold, I do have “underinsured” motorist protection.

 However, Nicki didn’t live with us, so unless her mom and step father have that coverage, I doubt it will apply.  The lawyers seemed to think it would, though, when we met–so I’m not telling them about this unless they’ve done some work on our behalf.  If they haven’t done what they said I’m not hiring them.

Why do ambulance chasers exist?  It’s all supply and demand–flyers proclaiming that “we are sorry to hear of the loss of your loved one” and “we would like to provide the needed legal support in this difficult time” show up in your mailbox because someone responds to them.

 These bloodsuckers who want to sue everyone in sight–they are a blight.  Indecent.  We as a people need to be strong enough to resist the temptation they represent.  Just as I would never buy from a telemarketer, I would never do business with one of these “slip and fall” lawyers.  We encourage the behavior, we reinforce it, when we respond to such invitations.  We bring them down upon ourselves, and the worthless bastards feed upon our grief, our anger, our need.  They tell you how sorry they are for your loss, but their eyes are empty, open, shiny…disengaged.  I know there are exceptions to this, lots of decent lawyers out there, but I don’t think any of them scan the obits then stuff your mailbox.

Why should we have to badger public servants to do their jobs?  I understand that these positions are often thankless, but these people have a profound effect on our lives.  They need to be held to a higher standard.  Being slow providing an accident report is not the same as being late providing an earnings report for a company.  Both affect people, but the actions of those public servants on the front lines can change the course of the lives of those they represent–us.  I had a clerk bring me out a judgment to sign many years ago which was written incorrectly–had I signed it, I would have been without my driver’s license for an extra six months.  I was lucky/smart enough to read it before signing, and they made me wait a long time, but they re-wrote it.  The part they changed came back typed in ALL CAPS, but hey, it was their screw up.  Government employees really do work for us, and they need to be held to a higher standard.  If they can’t understand or won’t accept that, they need to get another job.

Why can’t we, as a people, expect to contact our insurance agent and get a straight answer, to be offered what we’re entitled too?  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really feel like I’m entitled to anything–the thought of “profiting” from the loss of my daughter makes me feel like I’m going to vomit.  But the reality is this–we pay insurance fees all our lives, and the payouts are in place for a reason.  There are expenses involved when someone dies, and Nicki’s brothers and sisters can get a good jump start on college with this money–neither of her families are in a financial position to turn away from that.  But again, why is it expected by all parties, including myself, that we need a lawyer?  Why should we have to deal with this?  Haven’t we suffered enough, aren’t we agonizing enough, feeling guilty for even asking about money, without all this with the lawyers?

I want them to leave me alone, I want it all to go away.  I want time to sit quietly, time to grieve, time to figure out why I should want to keep breathing.  Necessity and demands on my time have kept me going, are getting me through this, but I’m not sure I want to get through it.  I don’t want to have to dig and question and demand–I want those who are paid to do this work to do it–in a timely, honest, reputable fashion.  Is that too much to ask?

Went to dinner last night with some friends (my wife’s, but I had viewed them as “ours” for a few years now) and ended up talking a little about the two big no-nos, politics and religion.  They are very religious individuals, and I honestly respect that.  I’m not sure that respect registered well with them–and I doubt we’ll be going out with them in future.  Not because I don’t want to, but I think I pissed them off.  I’d like to share a few of their key points with you (somewhat paraphrased), and see what you think.

“You have to have faith.”  I understand.  Faith is the key to being able to let go, and I do not possess the type of faith they are talking about.  I wish that I did–I envy their faith.  There has to be great peace in knowing that God has a plan and is in control, that you can take the precepts of the Catholic faith as gospel and wash your hands of any thinking.  “Let go and let God.”  It must be comforting to look at the hot-button issues in today’s world and be absolutely certain that your personal stance on them–as dictated to you by your church and clergy–are correct.  To feel vindicated of any responsibility when you take that Catholic voter’s guide into the polling station with you, sure that you are doing the right/holy/moral thing by selecting the candidates they’ve chosen for you.  It must be great to know that the head of the church is in fact infallible (at least on issues of morality, as it was explained to me).

“You have to accept Christ as your personal savior to be saved.”  I’m sorry, but I cannot accept that all the Jews, Buddhists, Islamites, homosexuals, divorcees (caveat on this one, if you pay for an annulment all is well with the divorced), those who had abortions, etc. are going to hell.  If that is true, it sounds like heaven is a pretty exclusive club to me.  I know too many people in those groups that are good, loving, honest people for me to grant blanket acceptance to a religion that writes them off.  I can’t do it–or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I won’t do it.  I if have to choose a heaven full of only those who fully accept the Christian dogma, I’ll take hell–and I expect the company would be better.

“It sounds like you want to be in control, when you need to let God be in control.”  It’s not that I have a problem with God being in control.  I have a problem with a religion being in control.  Each “religion” is basically a version of what most of us believe to be God’s will as filtered through human beings.  The basic tenants of almost all earthly religions are nearly identical.  Human beings are fallible, and therefore I question.  God made us curious, and I don’t believe that that curiosity was instilled in us just to tempt us, I believe it is a part of us because God wants us to think, to apply our intellect, to make informed choices.  To avoid being led by the nose.

“You’re not a Catholic.”  Please understand, I consider myself a Catholic, and by and large I believe in the Catholic Church.  I was raised Catholic, did Catechism on Wednesday nights.  Did the whole alter boy thing.  Married in the church, and my school-aged children attend parochial school.  Does it make sense to demand blind faith of your parishioners?  What about the fact that all religions change their stance/interpretations on a semi-regular basis?

This conversation could well have been with people who choose to believe in any number of religions.  I actually find the Catholic Church to be more tolerant of other (Christian) religions than most.  The Baptists I came into contact with while I lived in Alabama felt the need to convert the Catholics, lest they go to hell.  The Christian Reformed Church (prevalent here in west MI) seems to feel pretty much the same.  At least the Catholics have room in their heaven for anyone who “…has ever heard the name of Christ and accepted him as their savior.”  That stance is their out for those to young to understand and those savages that the world is so full of who have never actually heard the word.

I will not embrace intolerance in any church.  For many years I have said that I feel absolutely sure of only two things:  Humans are not the most intelligent beings (whether that means there is a God, aliens, both, whatever) and that none of the earthly religions have it completely right.  Everything else, in my mind, I am unsure of–and I’m even willing to debate those two.

I think we should be shopping at the Cafeteria no matter what the issue–politics, religion, whatever.  The underlying assumption with a statement like “Cafeteria Catholic” is that you go up to the counter and only select items that appeal to you.  That behavior is not what I’m purporting.  In these instances we need to go to the counter and look closely at all the items for sale, inspect them, check the list of ingredients, see who prepared them, check the expiration date.  Compare what you find with the food you’ve chosen at other lunch counters in your life, and then make your selections based the empirical evidence you’ve gathered.  

I’m sure I’ll never feel as confident and comfortable with my decisions as those who have “true faith”, who put their decisions in the hands of others.  But is that a bad thing?  Bottom line, as always, is this: Am I shortchanging my children by not teaching them to blindly follow any authority figure/organization?  What do you think?

For most of the last four days I have struggled with this decision:  Go and march in Washington on the 24th, or no?  The logistics were a consideration–I really can’t afford to make the trip, and leaving my wife with all three of the kids still living at home over an extended weekend is a lot to ask.  The kids are too young to take with me (6 and down) and my wife wouldn’t go regardless–let’s just say that she and I have some very different political views in most areas.  At any rate, it was going to be difficult to pull off, but I could conceivably have made the trip.  I have decided against it–I’m going to tell you why, and I would be very interested in any input the BT community might have.

As I understand it, the message put forth by the people organizing the rally is “Pull out of Iraq immediately”.  Now I may be wrong about that, but I’ve checked the links posted here at BT to the web pages of the event organizers, and that’s how I read it.

Here’s the thing–I don’t agree with that statement.  While I want to get our people home as soon as possible, and while I believe they will probably have a civil war once we leave (no matter how long we stay), I don’t think that packing things up tomorrow is the way to go.  IMHO, we went in there, as a country, misguided and lied to or not, and we owe the people there more than that.  We need a structured withdraw over a period of time.

I have heard it expressed that any reason to march on Washington–any reason to demonstrate against this administration–is a good reason.  I am more than willing to demonstrate against this administration for any number of reasons, including the war in Iraq.  I am not willing, however, to back this particular message.  I think the message is misguided, fundamentally flawed.  I think that most Americans are going to look at the root of the message being broadcast, and turn the channel on those protesting.

What do you think?