 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Though March 6, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins China has decided that the United States has a monopoly on the Internet and that it is imperative that the United Nations does something about it. I have some bad news for them. It was the guy under their man in the White House that invented it and not them. The amusing part was that Gore looked like he was trying to be serious when he made that claim. It’s ours, and just because they owned the last administration doesn’t give them any control over the Internet. They should have mentioned that to Gore when he was inventing it. But it’s too late now, isn’t it? The Chinese will have to find another way to control the transparency of their government. Speaking of controlling the transparency of government, I don’t find it surprising that McCain and Feingold’s amendment seems to be very much in line with China’s thinking. It seems that there are some in government who want to control 'bloggers and email lists. You can be sure that the media is right behind them on this. What with all of the competition for information, they are losing the battle for readers. People have discovered that these days, those who are charged with the responsibility for disseminating information are the bedfellows of the Ward Churchills of the world. They have found new places to go, and it isn’t the left-wing media. Ever since the CBS memogate issue arose, the left-wingers have been doing their best to prove a right-wing bias in the media. In short, they are trying to prove that red is green, and they are failing miserably because the people get to choose where they go for their information. They, too, would prefer a government solution, be it a U.N. government solution (New World Order) or a United States government solution run by left-wingers. I have noticed that many of the anti-government types who were adamantly against anything that Clinton did are still anti-government types and agreeing with just about everything he says these days. I hope all of these people can forgive my antidisestablishmentarianism. Actually, I don’t really care, but I thought it would be a nice thing to say. There has been a change in thinking for some on the left and they now see the world through a different set of eyes. Meaning they decided to open them. I guess bumping into things all of the time can be a little annoying after a while. There is one group of 'bloggers that have become my favorite. For those of you who would like to see a good digest of world news mixed with what’s happening here, you can find them over at littlegreenfootballs.com. Recently they have been talking about their conversion from being left-wingers to conservatives. It is exactly this type of thing those on the left are trying to shut down. They can’t stand against the truth, and they, like the Chinese, are terrified of what the reaction will be from the people. They are afraid of getting the same results as they did in the last election. They passed the "McCain and Able" Feingold bill and then tried to skirt the issue. They tried to do an end run on their own bill as they snickered quietly to each other. In short, they tried to cheat and they still lost the election. I’m quite certain that I don’t want a bunch of yahoos who cheat and still lose to be running anything other than maybe a hotdog stand on a corner. They got a little dose of their own and have been crying foul ever since. It’s kind of pathetic in its own knee slapping way. The chief cheater in this case was George Soros who blew a ton of money, and they still lost the election. He said that defeating Bush was his most important life goal. Recently George Soros and son made the news when a dog owned by his son attacked somebody. The dog’s name is Naomi. and this is the second incident for Naomi according to a news report in CNS News. It sounded like Clinton’s three strikes and you’re out rule might just end up affecting a liberal. Time to change the rules again. I guess. Now the liberals have picked a new leader and it is Dr. Deanmento. He’s perfect, really; and I mean it. I have never seen anybody who could motivate the half-starters like him. He managed to use the Gore-invented Internet to motivate a bunch of people that never showed up to vote. When he ended up having his rear end handed to him in the primaries, he gave us the most enthusiastic roar I have ever seen or heard from a total loser. In a speech, he said that there is no county in the country that doesn’t have Democrats in it, and that Democrats should be proud of that. I had to laugh when I read that. You know it might as well have been a flea saying there isn’t a dog in the world that doesn’t have at least one flea. Poor Naomi. All she has is George Soros. No wonder she is so conflicted. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
I demand to know where the human rights and women’s rights groups are over the case of Floridian Terri Schiavo. Where are her civil rights? Did she lose them the moment she could no longer audibly answer or respond for herself? Why do human rights organizations stand and give tirade after tirade to defend the war criminals at Guantanamo Bay, but are nowhere to be found over a woman supposedly living in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) in defense of her rights? Why haven’t the women’s rights groups spoken out against Terri’s “estranged” husband, Michael, who wants to pull the feeding tube and let his wife die a slow death of dehydration and starvation? Shouldn’t Michael’s desire to have his wife die be classified under spousal abuse? Truly, if this case is a reflection of how Americans are moving forward in handling bioethics, then we are all screwed. This case, which should never have become a topic at America’s water coolers, has so many facets and layers to it. When it comes to the topic of bioethics, we’ve only begun to lift the lid off a deadly and dangerous box of medical morality. In 1972, two neurologists stated they had identified a condition of "wakefulness without awareness." This state is caused when a patient, due to head injury, lack of oxygen, degenerative disease, or loss of all upper brain functions, becomes a victim of what has been termed a Persistent Vegetative State, or PVS. This wide-ranging term has delivered only uncertainty in diagnosis, treatment, and ethical decision-making regarding these types of patients. PVS has become one more thing out of the bioethics Pandora’s box that shouldn’t have been opened. A large portion of the danger in using such a general term is that many people who only hear sound bites of news and discussion over the condition of PVS are so deeply misguided and uninformed. Most of us, when we hear the word “vegetative,” immediately think of an individual who is nothing but brain dead. This is a misnomer. Patients who are unable to live without being hooked up to every tube, beeper, electronic regulator, and waste remover, and with no hope of ever recovering brain activity, are classified brain dead. With the bioethics questions over PVS, we’ve painted the manifestation that without bells and whistles this body is nothing but an inconvenience and a burden, or a last will and testament needing to die so, darn it, I can obtain my inheritance! There are citizens, judges and lawyers who don’t even comprehend PVS, and they are deciding if it’s okay to go ahead a murder someone. How does this make sense? The term Persistent Vegetative State has come to be applied to people who actually do show some signs of awareness (Terri Schiavo). PVS often is confused with "brain death," although the two are not the same. (Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain.) Appallingly, "right to die" advocates and Terri’s husband Michael have used the PVS to unite people to their rationale. It has even tainted the positions in some states laws altering them to classify the basics of life (food and water) as medical treatment! Imagine a cup of chocolate malt-flavored protein drink…it has now become classified as medical treatment. I didn’t know feeding someone sustenance or giving him or her a cup of cold water was considered medical treatment. I thought it was just caring for those who can’t care for themselves due to their physical challenges or financial inabilities. I guess all the quadriplegics had better be watching out and so should third world nations. Human rights organizations may see you eating and drinking H2O and decide no, you’ve no right to medical treatment; give me that bowl of rice, NOW! Persistent Vegetative State is not easily diagnosed. Although accepted signs of PVS include the absence of awareness of oneself or one's environment, we cannot measure thought or awareness, only behavior and movement. Today's medical tests are not specific enough to make a certain diagnosis of PVS. As a result, the rate of misdiagnosis is high, approximately 40 percent in some studies. Physical disabilities experienced by many of these patients, such as blindness and paralysis, can stop them from exhibiting behaviors that could make their awareness known. Recent video footage shot of Terri Schiavo shows her smiling and responding to her surroundings leading many to question whether she is actually in the state of PVS. If you really want to know the answer to this, ask her parents and friends. Reality check: The 1972 definition and the recent attempts to define PVS are not clear enough to tell the true state of patients who’ve suffered serious brain injury. According to Cindy Province (who holds master’s degrees in medical surgical nursing and bioethics, and is a cofounder and associate director of the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture), we cannot let the death sentence of PVS fit all situations: “Part of the reason is that consciousness is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In general, terms, human brains aren't like light bulbs that are either on or off. Instead, they are more like irons, which, while turned on, may be anywhere from warm to hot. Unfortunately, medical treatment and ethical decision-making have not always taken into account that there are many things that are still unknown about severe brain injury.” Do we understand this? How can we make a judgment of life or death based on knowledge that is still incomplete? Neuroscience has barely touched the cusp of understanding the smallest part of our grey matter. We’ve a long way to go before we can mark someone with a death sentence. So what if someone is in the position of a Terri Schiavo or they were in a PVS state for seven years or more? Is life not worth allowing the injured brain time to go from lukewarm to hot? Are those like Terri, who are alive, allowed the same pursuit of happiness, protection, and equality? Or do we want to give only preferential treatment to ourselves and to what we define as “living?" As I had jested over those who are quadriplegic or from a third world country, will we make the same applications to our elderly folk as we are to those who appear to be in a state of PVS? Your children, Grandma, may decide you don’t deserve medical treatment (i.e. food and water) when you get too feeble to go to the kitchen and cook it. How cold-hearted have we become? Ms. Province relayed recently that on the “medical horizon, a large amount of work with severely brain-injured patients is taking place.” This research is happening inside and outside the United States. Not long ago, at the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability in London, a diagnostic tool was developed to help medical professionals identify awareness in patients previously diagnosed as unaware. Some of these patients have begun to communicate, and to recapture some physical function, but more significantly for ethical concerns, to express their wish to live. Shouldn’t we all be given the right to express our wishes? Terri Schiavo and others like her deserve the right to live. Everyone deserves food and water. Sometimes it seems we treat our criminals sitting in today’s penitentiaries better than we treat those who cannot defend themselves. Whether it's patients like Terri, our elderly or our unborn human children, ethics of who we are as a race must be brought up to the moral standards of love and compassion for humanity. None of us living in a nation so full of plenty should ever deny another human being nourishment. Food, water and the right to live cannot be decided by a textbook definition that is completely filled with the nuances of variables. There is still so much we don’t understand about the human brain and how it functions. We have barely scratched the surface of the brains amazing recuperative abilities. With our minimal knowledge of how this all works are we willing to starve another human to death because we were given guardianship rights over them? Terri Schiavo, if the human rights advocates and the women’s right organizations don’t take a stand for you, I want you to know there are those who will fight for you, pray for you, and believe you’ve the right to live. And Terri, I am one of those here for you. God bless you. |
||||||||||
Only
two movies had a real impact on American culture last year. One was
Mel Gibson’s The
Passion of the Christ. The other was Michael Moore’s
Fahrenheit
9/11. Both defined whole sets of election-year social values
(the former a right-wing favorite, the latter a film for the left).
Yet neither was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year.
So what’s up with that? Well, let’s take a look. Up first is The Passion. Now, obviously, this movie’s got a lot going for it—for example, God. You tend to do well when God’s on your side. Good cinematography doesn’t hurt, either—and The Passion had plenty of that, too. What a surreal motion picture. I swear I felt like I was there. I could practically taste the blood of Christ; I could feel his pain and smell his remorse. That’s why I’m not buying this “gratuitous violence” stuff. Was it gratuitous? Yeah. But don’t blame Gibson; blame the Romans. What do you think crucifixion was—fun? The Passion also features some very fine acting. Officially, it stars James Caviezel as Jesus. But you quickly forget James Caviezel is there. (Unfortunately, the Academy forgot he was there, too. How could he not win Best Actor? It blows my mind.) But for all its merits, is The Passion really Best Picture material? I’m not so sure. It’s certainly far from perfect. In fact, it lacks context. That’s why critics got away with calling it gratuitous. If you knew the story going in—great. But if you didn’t, you were left to wonder: “Why’s everyone beating up that poor Jewish guy?” That’s the thing that keeps this from being a true Best Picture contender. It tackles the who, what, where, when, and how of Christ’s execution. It could’ve done a better job tackling the why. As a result, it’s easy to justify an Oscar to the choir. But to the unbelievers? Maybe not so much. Fahrenheit 9/11 faces similar challenges. By the time this movie hit theaters last summer, its message didn’t really matter anymore. It could’ve been an anti-Bush message, or an anti-gravity message, or even an anti-films-with-a-message message. Everyone knew Michael Moore was hell-bent on derailing George Bush’s reelection. At that point, the final product was secondary—people had already judged it. Not that Fahrenheit veers off course. It doesn’t. And its footage is undeniable. Dead kids piled in the back of a truck. Wounded soldiers paying an arm and a leg to prove that freedom isn’t free. If you ever wondered what war looks like, see this movie. It’ll make you wonder how much you really want to know. But Moore also uses his footage to play gotcha politics. He doesn’t suggest that war is a racket; he suggests that Bush’s war is a racket, and acts like the Bush White House is the only one ever to screw something up. That’s ridiculous. An anti-war message will never sink in with pro-war people when all you are is John Kerry’s mouthpiece. In the end, and perhaps for this reason, Fahrenheit 9/11 failed to live up to its stated social purpose. Conservative Red State Republicans beat liberal Blue State Democrats on Election Day. Bush won. And as pundits would have it, The Passion was voted Best Picture in the process. To that end, Fahrenheit isn’t Best Picture material, either. How can you reward a movie that falls short of the one thing it sets out to do? Still, there’s a problem with this analysis. It’s fine, in and of itself, but it fails to explain why the two most important movies of the year weren’t nominated for the Oscar. So what’s the deal? Perhaps Hollywood is having one of its more risk-averse moments. Both movies come with a lot of baggage. It’s a no-win situation for the Academy. If The Passion beats Fahrenheit, it wouldn’t be true to Hollywood’s leanings. (This was clear during Chris Rock’s opening monologue, when the mention of Moore received cheers and the mention of Gibson received a clap and a couple of coughs.) But on the flipside, if you thought the entertainment industry had its hands full after Janet Jackson breastfed 90 million Americans last year, imagine what would happen if Fahrenheit beat The Passion. Conservatives would give birth to whole flocks of canaries. You can’t blame Hollywood for wanting to avoid this. It’s not cowardice—just good business sense. (I just wish they would’ve shown such caution before releasing Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.) But maybe the question here isn’t why the Academy snubbed both movies. Maybe the question is: What does it mean? Personally, I’m glad they did it. Why? Because it’s like a giant “Ah, bite me” towards the entire Red/Blue dichotomy. Not because this dichotomy is totally baseless, but because pitting The Passion of the Christ against Fahrenheit 9/11 is a thoroughly stupid way to frame it. Think about this. These movies aren’t natural rivals. If the Second Coming happened next Friday (Jesus 2: Electric Boogaloo, anyone?), and Jesus were interviewed by Fox News, he would be pro-troops and anti-war. He would gravitate towards the tired and poor no matter the state they lived in—whether in Red State rural areas or Blue State inner cities. And he would finger both parties for being the lying sacks of snakes that they are. In short, he would scoff at this Passion vs. Fahrenheit notion. (He might also critique Renee Zellweger’s dress. It’s hard to tell.) Look, I don’t care if Hollywood wants to be preachy. Really. Who am I to tell them what to do? But if you want to be preachy, at least follow in Gibson and Moore’s footsteps. Believe what you’re preaching. And believe there’s an urgency to it. In 1994, Steven Seagal turned in the most anti-climactic ending to any movie ever, when, in the final moments of On Deadly Ground, he conducted an anti-Big Oil slideshow in front of a crowd of Eskimos. (Sorry for the spoiler, but if you haven’t already seen it—don’t.) Seagal wasn’t wrong, necessarily. He made some good points. But his speech was so contrived that it nearly ruined movies for me forever. You want to talk about global warming? Zip your lips. There’s hot air coming out. On a larger scale, I think that’s the same problem Hollywood ran into before the Iraq war. Actors and singers were very outspoken. And for all we know, they meant every word. But people saw them as preachy for preachiness’ sake. This sort of approach rarely wins converts. If anything, it only sinks Red and Blue States further in the mire of their respective flaws. That’s why I’m glad the Academy sat out this fabricated Fahrenheit/Passion battle. Because just when they were expected to pick sides, they decided they didn’t want to. Finally, someone decides not to speak out of sheer obligation. This doesn’t reverse all that Big Seagal wrought—but it’s a start. Giving Team America the nod for Best Picture would also help. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
I have a colleague whose many astute observations come so naturally to him that he isn't even aware when he makes a brilliant suggestion during one of our many conversations. Truly witty people tend to be this way; they connect ideas quickly and usually either remark wryly about the topic of discussion or draw a simple conclusion that wouldn't necessarily occur to a person who has become too close to the subject matter. One of our most recent discussions centered on the idea of school choice and how education would function better and meet more individual needs if schools were forced to compete for students through private enterprise. Realizing that it might take years to educate the public about how everyone wins by implementing this type of solution, we switched subjects to a recent article reporting that several schools are teaching kids how to put condoms on cucumbers as part of their sexual education curriculum. While you never know when you might have to have safe sex with a cucumber, we agreed how sad it is that many of these same kids won't graduate knowing the basics. My colleague said he often wondered why the public schools don't simply offer the basics of Reading/Writing, Science and Math. I quickly countered that he forgot Social Studies. He said that Social Studies can be considered part of the problem. I asked him to expound, remembering that Civic Education is one of my passions. He said that any subject that can be agenda driven should not be offered through the public schools; the mandate of public school should be to graduate students with a foundation in general education. Many of my own ideas for fixing education center on countering the agenda driven curriculum that is deemed acceptable because it reflects moral relativism. I see teaching the origins of the US Constitution and the history surrounding its inception and continuing influence as vital to a republican form of government. Also, textbook company-driven instruction must be replaced, but I won't go into these ideas in this piece. Instead, I want to talk about the idea of just teaching the basics of Literacy, Math, Science, and the how and why of our republican form of government. If teachers could just focus on the basics and teach just four courses a day, the other half of theirs' and the students' time could be spent on practicing concepts (translation: time formerly designated for homework and grading papers completed at home). Half the time teachers could use direct instruction to teach about new ideas. Students would have the rest of the time built into their school day when they would be required to work independently to master these new concepts. Sometimes there would be group work but only if it is conducive to the assimilation of ideas, not for the purpose of sharing in accountability for what is being taught. What about Art, Music, Physical Education, or even Religion? Since time after school would not be designated for homework, students could register for classes offered through the private sector by specialists in these particular areas. Day care would be eliminated. Kids hanging out on street corners would be less of a problem. A whole second shift of professionals would compete for the time and opportunity to work with these children. Because families would choose the electives, these instructors would be afforded the respect they so richly deserve. Most people would agree that the basics are all that is needed to succeed in learning and performing a job. Skill in these other areas can enhance performance in the basics, provide a system of morals which reflects the value systems of individual families, and foster an appreciation for the innate aesthetic beauty that exists, yet sometimes must be developed. By separating any "special interest" agenda from education, we could open up a whole new avenue of choice for parents and students. It would cost less to educate our children in the public schools because there would be less instructional time spent on extracurricular material and more time spent on mastering the skills necessary to succeed in a capitalist society. By using the KISS principle—Keep It Simple Stupid—families will be given more choice in education, and tax dollars saved could be spent on a whole new private industry in education that will assuredly develop to meet the need for elective classes at the close of each school day. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Martha Stewart, is a public figure, but her accountability does not extend to becoming a trustee, for the well being of the economy. Her responsibility is to her stock holders, her customers and fulfilling her business obligations. With the recent hullabaloo over insinuations that she benefited from inside information on a stock sale of ImClone, we are supposed to believe that this diva of wall street is an incarnation of Jay Gould. Well, you don't have to like Martha, but you sure don’t have to take delight in the 'national sport' that revolves around an executioner press. Allegations that seem to point to her culpability don't tell the real tale of economic trust. The entire notion that insiders are endowed with special charges that proprietary knowledge risks criminality by the mere slip of a lip, is symptomatic of the "rush to judgment" that rules this 'PC' culture. Why is this a story to begin with? Will a mere transaction of less than 4,000 shares ruin an economy? Should Ms. Stewart be tarred and feathered for using etiquette banned by the SEC? Or are we supposed to hang Martha's stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, from the highest tree for getting her out of a down market? Many will say the law must be enforced. But that attitude misses the mark in the nature of markets and the realities of the current conditions. Wall Street does not operate to fund sound investments. It is the ultimate gamble that the Monte Carlo Casino could only dream of controlling the same odds. But our entire economy and commercial way of life depends on roller coaster deviations, which are more the reflection of manipulations, than mere independent market decisions. Let's be honest about this actuality. The Martha caper is a diversion from real economic issues. What we all should be concerned about is - The Coming US Dollar Implosion. But the media and the financial press wants you to be consumed with the decor and color scheme that Ms. Steward will use to enhance her jail cell. The current state of financial coverage is virtually non existent, even with all the continuous coverage on cable. The case for thoughtful economic analysis is ignored by most of the public. The idea that money matters are difficult to understand is absurd. There certainly are complexities involved in specific subjects, but why do people go out of their way to protect their ignorance? KISS - let's keep it simple stupid - but not dull . . . When the dollar loses value in relationship to other currencies, YOU the consumer have less purchasing power! HELLO ??? Did you hear that and do you understand the concept? What advantages that corporations may gain from more competitive foreign sales will not filter down into your family budget. The scam that the trickle down will run into your account is like believing that insider trading is an abnormality. Now my next visit to Europe will cost me more - in U.S. Federal Reserve Notes. We hope you already understand that the reality of a U.S. Dollar is a myth. So why should you accept the nonsense that you are fed, that it really isn't bad when the dollar slips in value? Domestic manufactures use this opportunity to increase their margins (that means the price to you) when your currency is under assault. What a deal! When we warn about record balance of payment deficits, most disregard that they are a prime cause of the crash in the dollar. What you will hear from the press is that this abnormality will correct itself with the increase in U.S. sales to foreign buyers, now that the dollar is weak. What they conceal from you is that the level of costs to you, will inflate as it will take more dollars to secure the same purchase. So we experience the worst of all worlds. A reduction brake on domestic jobs that are unrelated to international trade, higher charges on native commerce because of increased margins, and inflated prices on foreign products because the dollar has lost its relative value. This translates into a fall in "true purchasing power" in wages with the slow down in the economy. But why should you care? It's more interesting to hear the speculation as to what Martha said to her friend Dr. Bart Pasternak, his estranged wife, what they said and when did they know it and what trades did they make - just as the Drudge Report! The voyeurism rage that dominates the 24 hours news cycle is now extended into the spectator watch. Too bad that half the energies are not redirected into the Marc Rich trades? No, she must be punished - just look at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia share price. The market always corrects . . . but when will they rectifiy the excesses in the currency markets that has destroyed Japan to a beggars economy and threatens to do the same for America? The action against Sam Waksal, the former ImClone CEO recently arrested on insider-trading charges is understandable, since he has a fiduciary duty to his company. So why is a Marc Rich allowed to skate the wheels of accountability? Well we all should know the answer that his friends in high places, were involved with their own insider deals with him. Poor Martha, was just sipping white wine and taking the Palmer Vineyards Tour with her Hamptons set. Her big wigs were just yuppies . . . Divert the focus from the crucial issues. Explain them as too complex for the general society to understand. Down play their significance and feed the public a steady diet of trivia that raises their own level of envy and satisfaction in the fall of an icon. All the time the dollar, the market and your economic security and future goes into the tank. The vat it sinks into will have the smell of a "Value Added Tax" before it tastes likes the intoxicating bubbles of Champagne. Martha has lost a fortune over this snafu, but her shareholder are the real victims in the crash of the companies' stock price. The American public are the ultimate losers in the collapse of the dollar, so why won't they direct their energies on a universal issue that effects all of us? Maybe it is because the diva is a more appealing target . . .
|
||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:34 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
