Originally posted from 12-21-03 to 12-28-03
I Have a Dream
by Lady Liberty

The final chapter of the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies opened on December 17, and was expected from Day One to break box office records (and it did). I decided to see the movie at an 11:30 a.m. matineé, partly because I wanted to have as much of the day left as possible (the movie runs a very long three and a half hours), but also because Saturday morning isn't exactly prime time for movie goers and I'm not fond of crowded theatres. I congratulated myself for arriving at the theatre by 11:15 a.m., but I'm sorry to say that my self-satisfaction was dashed almost immediately. Imagine my surprise to discover that - in a small town, on a Saturday morning of the last shopping weekend before Christmas, and on a day when the mercury barely reached 20 degrees - there was a line for tickets. A long line.

The J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the movies are based are beloved by teenaged boys everywhere. But as I walked to take my place at the end of the line, I took notice of something peculiar. Though the line did have its share of the stereotypical teenaged male nerd, it also boasted adults of all ages and of several apparent economic stratas. Teenaged girls giggled while they waited their turn. Families with children as young as 5 or 6 got to the box office and asked for six tickets, all for the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. And I, for all my planning in advance, had to get a ticket for the 12 o'clock show because the 11:30 show was sold out by the time I got to the head of the line.

Certainly, the Lord of the Rings series of movies are very good (in fact, they're some of the best I've ever seen). But fantasy movies, as a rule, don't have an across-the-spectrum appeal, and are more often than not films successful with a niche audience only. So what is it that's bringing in such enthusiastic and diverse crowds to what is widely considered a story that actually defines the fantasy genre?

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy of novels covers a very complex plot involving highly detailed cultures and societies for dwarves, elves, hobbits, and men. But, simplistically speaking, the Lord of the Rings is the story of an evil wizard who gathers an army so that he can defeat the good guys of Middle Earth and run things himself. The good guys, who just want to live their lives without interference, fight back. But the bad guy is incredibly powerful, and his forces are awesome. The good guys have an uphill battle ahead of them, and they're pretty sure that they're going to lose in the end. But they fight anyway because they won't simply lie down and let evil win.

One of the more surprising heroes of the Lord of the Rings story is a hobbit named Frodo. Hobbits aren't very big or strong, and they're not unusually intelligent or particularly adventurous. In other words, they're a lot like very ordinary people (only shorter). Frodo doesn't want to be a hero. But when he doesn't have a choice, he surprises everyone including himself by being determined enough - and with the help of some friends - to get the job done.

Aragorn is also a reluctant hero. He's a man with a past he'd just as soon forget, and he does a fine job until he's called upon to help Frodo. For honor's sake, he does. Aragorn is a born leader, but one who is willing to listen to others and take their advice. He's charismatic, but humble. And he's willing to die for those he leads.

Legolas is an elven prince who, like most of his people, loathes dwarves. But when he must fight alongside the dwarf Gimli, he learns that dwarves have their good points. Gimli, who is at least as leery of Legolas in return, also discovers that elves aren't so bad. These two, who in other times might never have seen eye to eye, fight side by side and become not only comrades in arms but true friends. And Gandalf, the mysterious wizard, is a friend and mentor to them all.

Unlike some of the teenaged boys I mentioned earlier, my reading interests are broader than the fantasy or science fiction that I do confess I love. I also read a lot of horror, for example, as well as some contemporary novels such as those by Tom Clancy or John Grisham. And I enjoy American history quite a bit. The latter might explain why, for some years now, my own fantasy resembles the historical events of 1776 much more than it does the fictional battle for Middle Earth.

I have dreamed of a modern day Thomas Jefferson who embodies the leadership qualities combined with the intelligence and integrity we need to cut back on the powers of what has become a virtually all powerful state. I have wished for a new Sam (or Samantha!) Adams who would incite the more apathetic members of the public to take constructive political action, again toward dismantling (or at least delaying) the predations of an all powerful state. I have hoped for an updated version of Benjamin Franklin who would work to educate and inspire the masses now as the original did then in an ongoing effort to mitigate the effects of an all powerful state.

But there's no record-breaking movie in America today that depicts Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin as heroes who fought against the tyranny of the English King. Instead, there's a fantasy movie that shows Frodo, Aragon, and Gandalf the Wizard working to stop the evil machinations of a dark wizard and his minions. But, fire-breathing dragons and magically enhanced elven swords aside, I don't know that there's all that much of a difference between the two, at least in general terms.

Perhaps so many people are caught up in the fate of Middle Earth because they recognize, even if only subconsciously, some kind of a parallel to our own reality. After all, there most certainly is something bad in a not-so-distant place, something that is seeking to curtail more more and more of our freedoms, something that is gaining more power and authority over all of us almost daily. If that power continues to grow apace, and gather more and more agents in its name, we literally do face the end of life as we know it and a new life that will, at best, be far less free. Those aware of the facts know that any fight to mitigate the influence of such a behemoth will be long term and difficult, and that some people will lose their livelihoods, lifestyles, liberty, and possibly even their lives as a result.

I still dream of a new Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Ben Franklin to energize and expand the pro-freedom movement. But I see nothing wrong with those who relate instead to Frodo - an ordinary being with extraordinary courage - or who would willingly follow someone with Aragorn's sense of honor and responsibility. If they relate to Frodo, perhaps they'll become more like him and be willing stand up despite their fears to keep big government and Big Brother at bay. If they admire Aragorn, maybe they'll join a pro-freedom group or organization with a cause and a leader they find they can also respect and follow. In a few very fortunate cases, it could even be that a reluctant leader will at long last recognize himself and stand up to be recognized by the rest of us.

Whatever else we think or do, and for whatever reasons, we must make at least some of these things a reality soon. Very soon. I fear that if we don't, my dream will become a nightmare, and freedom itself will be relegated to mere fantasy. That's a scenario too dark for fiction, but sadly, not for history. What we do today will determine how the past looks from tomorrow. Me? I kind of relate to Frodo.

Originally posted from 12-07-03 to 12-14-03
History Lessons
by Lady Liberty

Tom Cruise's latest movie effort was released on December 5. In The Last Samurai, he plays a Civil War hero whose military career later came to involve incidents that sicken him. Largely in desperation, he accepts a job with the Japanese government to train its army in the use of western weapons. After being captured by the enemy - a group of samurai warriors - Cruise's character learns something about a willingness to live and to die with honor, and that lesson changes everything for him. In "bushido" - the "way of the warrior" - he finds his own way.

In much the same manner as Japan passed from the influence of the samurai warrior and into the western world near the turn of the century, honor is also no longer a way of life in America. There was a time not so very long ago when two men could seal a deal with a handshake. Now the same agreement requires lawyers and contracts. In the relatively recent past, if someone gave their word on something, you could take that word to the bank. Now we demand witnesses and signatures because a word can be broken for little more than an "I changed my mind" or a matter of convenience. Doubtless there are many who can still remember when a problem with a neighbor involved nothing more than a visit and a polite discussion. Now the same matter will probably involve a lawsuit.

If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize that many of our laws have come into existence - or at least are being used a whole lot more - because honor has slipped out of existence. Contracts, for example, have the strength of the law behind them because too many people are all too willing to renege on a deal if there aren't serious repercussions involved. Homeowners Associations spell out minutiae for home upkeep in certain areas. Cities have made and will enforce nuisance laws because some people won't take care of their property without the threat, nor will they keep their pets from becoming dangerous (or in danger) without leash laws. Drug tests have become nearly universal pre-employment qualifiers. Even marriages have become less an honorable commitment than a business deal sealed with prenuptual agreements and his-and-hers checking accounts rather than a kiss.

I personally am not fond of these kinds of laws. I understand that they exist to protect me from people without honor, but I don't think you can legislate honor any more than you can legislate intelligence or morality. Instead, appropriate consequences for those who dishonor their word - or who infringe upon the rights of others - seems both more appropriate and less invasive of the liberties of others (not to mention having fewer laws written to already bursting-at-the-seams listings of statutes). The man who fails to live up to his end of a business agreement should be punished to the extent of the losses of his partner(s), and his failings publicized so that others won't partner with him again. People who harm animals by failing to care for them properly should be shunned by decent people everywhere not to mention refused service at every place in town they might obtain another pet. The man or woman who has a few drinks on a Friday night or who uses a drug recreationally on Saturday shouldn't be penalized, but woe betide the employee who shows up to work under the influence!

Honor also involves a willingness to accept the blame when you're the one who made the mistake. If you burn your lap with hot coffee because you're stupid enough to drive off with a paper cup between your legs, then you need to 'fess up to a little temporary insanity to go along with your reddened skin. If you're tempted to lie about something, consider for a moment the reason for the temptation and admit to yourself - and others - that maybe, just this one time, you're not perfect and you'll try harder next time. If you don't think you can keep your word on something, then don't give it. If you do give it, then keep it.

Most of the men and women in the so-called freedom movement are men and women of honor. They accept responsibility for themselves and, by so doing, can be relied upon in both word and deed. They don't count on the government to take care of them. They count on themselves, and for that reason, they're also able to count on each other. Those involved in the freedom movement say they want to repeal a number of laws, and they'll doubtless try to do just that. And when they do, there will be little difference in day-to-day life because they didn't need those laws in the first place to treat each other with respect and to honor their commitments.

In today's Japan, more than 100 years since the last samurai, there are a number of problems including a rapidly rising murder and violent crime rate. Some have blamed the influence of western culture for these downward trends. But the changes in society there aren't really due to movies or music or the style of clothes. Instead, there's been a steady erosion of respect for responsibility, and a devaluation of honor. In fact, much the same thing is happening there as has been happening here. And while I'm not clear on all of the causes in either country, I'm perfectly aware of the solution to the problem.

Honor and personal responsibility must become the non-negotiable expectation in homes, schools, and businesses everywhere. Those who lie or fail to keep their word must not be protected or excused, but must experience real and negative consequences for their actions. That means that the three year-old who lies about breaking the vase should not be allowed to play with his favorite toy for half an hour and will have to apologize to Mommy. It means that the teen-ager who comes in an hour after curfew will have her driving privileges suspended - without exceptions for work or special events - for a couple of weeks. It means that the child who is failing English will get an F whether it hurts his feelings or not. It means that the employee who shows up drunk to work in the morning will be fired before lunch.

Making excuses for the inexcusable has not only discouraged those without honor from getting any, but has dishonored us as well for our failure to value honor appropriately. In a way, the lack of honor exhibited by some is a kind of reflection on the rest of us who are apparently willing to accept that kind of behavior as long as we can throw a law at it if we really need to. In old Japan, the shame of inaction could be as great as the shame of action. One way to redeem ourselves is to stop considering others less capable - or culpable - than we are. And the best way to get others to be capable and culpable is to expect it of them.

As George Bernard Shaw said, "Freedom requires responsibility. That is why most men dread it." Before we can win real freedom, we must make honor and responsibility real virtues again. We must aspire to them ourselves, and we must demand them of others. Bushido is a thousand years old, and it comes from a philosophy that's foreign to most of us on many levels. But the "way of the warrior" offers valuable insight for freedom fighters, and the most dishonorable thing I can imagine under any code of ethics is letting it fade unremarked into the past as the Japanese, to their great loss, have begun to do.

Originally posted from 11-30-03 to 12-07-03
Life, Death, and the Arbitrary Line Between
by Lady Liberty

I'm very much in favor of the so-called right to die. If I was suffering from a painful terminal illness, I'd almost certainly seek to die before the pain became overwhelming. I'm not the only one who feels this way, hence the doctor-assisted suicide legislation in several states (law, however, only in the state of Oregon at this time).

I also have no desire to live in a permanently unconscious state where I have been declared brain dead, or where my brain function is so low that a respirator is needed to keep me alive. I feel strongly enough abut it that I have a living will to that effect. But also in my living will is a caveat: If I'm breathing and my heart is beating without assistance, any nutritional aids are to be kept in place. Where there remains some brain function, there remains hope of recovery, however slim the hope might be and however limited the eventual recovery could prove.

And that brings me to the unutterably said case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. Though breathing on her own as well as maintaining a heartbeat and her body temperature, she needs a tube in her stomach to receive fluids and nutrition. Her husband has fought in court for years to have the tube removed. He was finally successful in October and, over strong objections from Terri's family and friends, the tube was removed. After six days, action taken by Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida State Legislature resulted in the tube being restored. But the fight continues both in and out of court with Terri's husband demanding she be "allowed" to die, and Terri's family pleading that she be permitted to live.

Both sides insist that both the law and morality is on their side. Her husband maintains she's a "vegetable" who will never recover true consciousness. Terri's parents say she already has. Mr. Schiavo says Terri once told him she wouldn't want to live as she is now and that she deserves to die with dignity (for the record, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has publicly stated this case is not a death with dignity issue). Her parents say she never mentioned that to them, and they maintain her husband never said anything about it either, until a large medical award was given to Terri and her husband as guardian.

Several doctors agree with Mr. Schiavo, saying that it is their opinion that Terri is unresponsive and lacks the capacity for communication at any level. Other doctors disagree, and even suggest that Terri could regain some function if she receives therapy (her husband has forbidden any therapeutic efforts).

Just prior to the removal of the feeding tube, Terri's parent's begged for a little extra time so that they could have the opportunity to teach Terri to swallow on her own. There's some evidence that she could, indeed, learn to do so. She doesn't drool, which means she still has at least some ability to swallow without choking. Her husband refused.

There are also some questions, at least in the minds of Terri's supporters, as to the cause of her disability. Everyone agrees that Terri suffered a serious lack of oxygen to her brain which caused the brain damage. Her husband, and some doctors, say she had a sudden heart attack as the result of a potassium imbalance (the large medical settlement the Schiavos received was due to the failure of physicians to diagnose the imbalance before Terri's ultimate collapse). But others claim that there were marks on Terri's neck observed when she was rushed to the hospital, as well as the results of some medical tests that some believe prove that somebody tried to kill Terri. A few go the next step further and whisper that that somebody was Terri's own husband.

Whatever the cause, the facts remain that oxygen deprivation led to brain damage, and that damage is permanent. Terri will never fully recover. But some continue to say that Terri could improve, and there is some evidence that they may be right. Despite an order prohibiting them from doing so, members of Terri's family managed to videotape some of their visits with her. On those tapes, Terri smiles when her mother comes in the room. She obeys a doctor's command to open her eyes as wide as she can. Her eyes follow moving objects. Heart rendingly, family members say that they told Terri before the tube was removed that she was about to be killed, and they claim she apparently panicked and tried to get out of her chair. Doctors working for Terri's husband say that all of these things are only reflex actions.

I'm not a medical professional, but those videos are extraordinary. A close friend of mine who has worked with people having conditions similar to Terri's agrees with me. In her words, there's no doubt that "she's in there." While it's not surprising that Mr. Schiavo could find a few doctors to testify the way they have (medical science is inexact, after all, and paid witnesses not necessarily reliable), it's shocking to me that judges have disregarded testimony on the other side of the issue, particularly when their opinion is so bolstered by the videos.

Terri's family and friends continue to fight for her life as well as to celebrate it. Terri's 40th birthday on December 3 has been cause to collect emails and prayers as well as hundreds of cards and small gifts. Meanwhile, Terri's husband is suing to have "Terri's Law" declared unconstitutional. His lawyers say the law violates Terri's rights. The State of Florida says that, on the contrary, the law is protecting Terri's rights.

While Terri Schindler-Schiavo committed no crime, she remains on what is essentially death row as judges and lawyers continue to manipulate the word of the law to save or condemn her. Meanwhile, it's becoming more and more clear that Terri's life is inconvenient for her husband. He refuses to divorce her because he would lose guardianship, but he is living with a woman he calls his fianceé who has had one child with him and is pregnant with another. The settlement money is being spent on Terri's care (such as it is, without therapy), but if Terri were to die, her guardian would get whatever remains.

Terri's parents have asked that Mr. Schiavo divorce their daughter. They have told him to keep the settlement money, and that they'll happily bear the burden of medical expenses. He has refused. He has also forbidden them to freely visit with their own child or to be given medical updates as to her condition. Michael Schiavo is exhibiting a great deal of zealousness to carry out the alleged wishes of a woman he threatened to leave if she gained weight. There's almost certainly more to this story than any of us will ever know.

I do believe in death with dignity. But I do not believe that a life, limited by injury or illness, is necessarily an indignity in and of itself. I do believe that quality of life is more important than the quantity of life remaining. But the ability to appreciate the company of others, and to experience sufficient joy to smile, is indicative of quality. I do believe in the right to die if a person so chooses to skip a week or two (or more) of pain you and I can't even imagine. But the only pain Terri Schindler-Schiavo has experienced lately has involved those six days off the feeding tube where she began to dehydrate to death.

It remains to be seen how the courts will finally decide in this case. But whatever each of us believes is the right thing to do under the most extreme of circumstances, we all have a personally vested interest in what happens next to Terri. That's because her situation isn't extreme. In fact, it falls considerably short of extreme. And if Terri dies of anything other than natural causes, the line will be moved that much closer to where each of us already lives. Will profoundly retarded children be the next we choose to have "die with dignity?" How about the elderly who suffer from Alzheimer's or dementia? And where, precisely, will the line be when it's our turn to be affected by it?

Originally posted from 08-17-03 to 08-24-03
Left in the Dark
by Lady Liberty

Not too long ago, I wrote about welfare. In that particular commentary, I lamented those who felt no shame at taking government handouts, and I wondered aloud what had happened to personal responsibility. After this last week, I've learned two more things that are reflective of the current sad state of affairs. First of all, I've discovered that more people than I had imagined are more dependent on some form of government authority than I thought. Secondly, I regret to say that, had circumstances altered just a little, I might very well have been one of them.

On August 14, portions of the northeastern US experienced, along with parts of Canada, the largest blackout in history. More than 50 million people in locales ranging from New York City to Detroit found themselves without electric power. The lucky ones saw their power restored in a matter of hours. The less fortunate had to wait days.

In our modern society with its dependence on computers and powered machinery, blackouts are serious business. For example, tens of thousands were without drinking water in Cleveland, Ohio because the city supplies its residents using electrically powered pumps to siphon water from Lake Erie. The outage occurred on a day when the temperatures and humidity were soaring throughout much of the blackout area, and an adequate amount of water wasn't merely a convenience but a necessity for survival.

As soon as the power was disrupted, 9-1-1 dispatchers were overwhelmed with calls from citizens asking if the authorities knew the power was out, and wondering when the power would be turned back on. When those people who had real emergencies could get through, a good number of the calls required the resucue of people trapped in elevators. In my own office building, we were lucky that the elevators were empty at the moment the power was cut off, and fortunate as well that we only had seven floors to descend.

When we decided the power wasn't coming back on anytime soon and we left for the day, we witnessed a near-accident at an intersection where traffic signals were dark. One man shouted at another, "It's a four-way stop, you @%*!" In other communities, police - who could have been better utilized helping with more important matters - were relegated to traffic duty to ensure cars moved along smoothly and safely in the absence of red and green lights.

As daylight faded, fire departments began receiving large numbers of calls from people who had resorted to candlelight in the darkness and had inadvertently started fires. Most grocery stores locked their doors, but those few that were open saw customers grabbing what provisions they could off the shelves in the fear that power might not be restored as quickly as hoped.

In my own house, it was dark, quiet, and very, very hot. I couldn't recall whether or not my water supply was dependent on electric power, so I played it safe and left the faucets off. I racked my brain to remember exactly what was in my freezer and refrigerator. Though I didn't think groceries would last too long in the heat if the fridge wasn't working, I did know they'd last a little longer if I didn't open the doors to check on the contents. I decided to sit on my back porch where I had a faint hope for a breeze while I considered my options. Leaning against one wall on the back porch was my little hibachi grill. It would have come in handy under the circumstances except for the fact I had no charcoal.

In fact, I didn't have a lot of things. I didn't have any jugs of water in the refrigerator, or anywhere else for that matter. That meant that, although I could have managed a day or two drinking what was in the fridge (which happened to be a small amont of beer and soda), I had no way of flushing the toilet. I didn't have any granola or candy bars, or even any other kind of snack food. Everything required cooking, and neither my electric stove nor my microwave were much more at the moment than very heavy paperweights. In the end, I discovered that I only really had two things that were of any use. I had a large oil lamp (it's decorative, but functional), and I had a solar-powered radio (with a hand crank for charging on cloudy days or dark nights).

The oil lamp, of course, didn't have any oil in it. But due to a fluke of fate, I'd been given some lamp oil recently and was able to fill the lamp while there was still daylight for me to see what I was doing. The radio had been charging from a wall socket when the lights went out, and so had a full charge. But none of that was due to any kind of advance planning on my part. In fact, the only advance planning I'd made for that Thursday night was a get-together with a friend to have dinner and watch a video.

In the end, my friend and I got together anyway. Fortunately, she had a gas stove so we were able to cook dinner. I brought my radio, so she, her husband, and I listened to the wall-to-wall coverage of the blackout while we ate. After dinner and with no relief to either the heat or the power outage in sight, we decided to go for a boat ride. Out on the water, the night was comfortable, but the view was eerie (though I live on Lake Erie, there's no pun intended) as dusk fell unbroken by any artificial lighting within sight. But just as we were returning to port, a light shone in the distance. And then another. And then the whole town lit up.

The power had been out for almost exactly four hours. And yet, from the reaction we had when we saw the lights come back on, you would have thought it had been days. Given our lack of preparation, we were very lucky it wasn't.

In considering everything that happened that afternoon and evening, I realized that, had the the power been out too long, I would have been in much the same position of those irresponsible and unprepared people I often condemn. I would have had little choice but to make my way to some local water station for a hand-out, or a temporary soup-kitchen for lunch. (I did have a full tank of gas and could have driven south until I was out of the blackout zone, but I didn't know that during the power outage, and probably wouldn't have had the outage continued long.) Sure, I can have some small sop to my pride by noting that I wasn't needlessly flustered enough to dial 9-1-1 for no good reason and that I actually know how four-way stops work. But that's not very much in the face of such basics as, say, drinking water.

I'm as guilty as they come when we assume electricity and running water will simply be provided as needed, and certainly guilty as well of failing to prepare for those moments when they aren't. Those of us who don't prepare for such events are going to find ourselves more dependent than ever on government hand-outs. As such, we'll also be utterly within the government's power and will have to do as we're told no matter what it may be.

Sure, you can believe the authorities will only act for the good of the rest of us, and that of course they'll take care of us until the disaster du jour has come and gone. And yes, this time it was just a power outage and all's well that ends well. But in a post 9/11 world, I trust you'll understand I'm going to buy some charcoal and make a few plans anyway, won't you? After all, along with personal responsibility I've also been known to nag about learning from mistakes. Consider me educated.

Originally posted from 08-10-03 to 08-17-03
Rights Not Won by Wrongs
by Lady Liberty

I don't support gay rights per se. But I do support equal rights. What I mean by that is that I don't believe any group, whether it be based on skin color or sexual orientation, should get any kind of preferential treatment. But I also consider it to be both unconstitutional and morally reprehensible to actively discrminate against people for such reasons.

Some people think that homosexuality needs to be an exception in the arena of discrimination because they consider such behavior to be sinful. They have every right to that belief. But others, including a significant number of religious institutions, don't have a similar mindset. Witness, for example, the recent Episcopal election of an openly homosexual priest to the level of Bishop. They, too, have every right to that belief. Just as we don't discriminate against people for their beliefs in this country, neither should those people use their beliefs as a rationale to actively discriminate against others.

Personally, I think that if you consider something to be sinful, you shouldn't do it. And as far as looking down your nose at those who do, well, there's plenty of precedent in religion for you to ignore the fact that others don't consider that same thing to be wrong. For example, some Christian denominations think gambling is a sin. Yet Catholic bingo nights are all but an institution in some places. Some religions take issue with dancing or the consumption of alcoholic beverages. But you don't see people praying in front of the nightclub or demanding that anyone who has a cocktail or two on any given evening be summarily fired and run out of the neighborhood because those who drink or dance might "influence the children".

Homosexuals have been openly struggling against discrimination for some time now. The recent Supreme Court decision concerning sodomy laws in the state of Texas was a great victory not just for homosexuals but for every one of us who values the few shreds of privacy the government still grudgingly permits us. (The justices rendered their decision based on constitutional implications of privacy and not on religious grounds, which has a substantial contingent jumping up and down and worrying that the decision will suddenly result in dramatic increases in the incidence of incest or polygamy, something which has not happened in states that don't discriminate against homosexual activity .)

Gay marriage is another issue that's not likely to leave the judicial forefront any time soon, particularly not since Canada has decided in favor of permitting the legal relationship of two persons of the same gender. But it would behoove everyone, particularly politicians, to recall that marriage is a religious term, and its definition should be up to individual faiths. The government should neither demand nor demean marriage, but should facilitate some sort of contractual relationship between consenting adults. Whether that relationship is "blessed" by some religion or another is none of the government's business, and frankly, it's none of anybody else's business, either.

Having had a number of gay friends, and having dealt with some very painful situations accordingly, I rejoice when people simply stop caring about what goes on in the bedroom of a homosexual couple. Things are they way they should be when they instead concentrate on whether or not the couple are good and decent people who contribute to the local economy and society, who treat others with kindness, and who mind their own business just as others are minding theirs.

Events like the annual Gay Days at Walt Disney World and the various Gay Pride parades in cities across the country were intended as occasions when homosexuals could have a good time in a celebratory atmosphere as well as an opportunity to show heterosexual America that they were just like everybody else in many ways. They, too, enjoyed amusement park rides and flower-covered floats. They, like most of us, take summer vacations or appreciate a good party. I've personally attended a few Gay Pride parades in years past, and had a really good time. But it seems that things have changed over the years, and not for the better.

According to an article published by Cybercast News Service, a Christian group was more than a little upset that Disney World let homosexuals hold Gay Days. Although Disney doesn't specifically endorse the event - held annually since 1991 - it certainly approves. After all, it gains as many as 100,000 visitors to the park for Gay Days, and publicity is rarely a bad thing for a venue like Disney World. And so, because it just couldn't stand the thought of homosexuals being at the park at the same time some poor defenseless little child might be there to see them, the Christian group decided it was going to videotape all of these disgusting people in an effort to curtail any future such events.

I was appalled at this group's so-called Christianity because it was obviously of a hate-filled variety. But then I read about what the group found, and I took a look at some of the video tape it compiled. And although I still believe the group would be perfectly happy to discriminate against all homosexuals, I'm convinced it had some cause to do so against some of those in attendance at this year's Gay Days, and that it has some complaints against Disney World that are entirely valid.

According to the reports, although guests at Disney World must wear shirts and shoes at all times, a number of those in attendance at Gay Days were shirtless, and some were even nude. Incidences were captured on video of men grabbing each other's groins or buttocks, and openly engaging in simulated sex acts. All of this was happening in full view of the families and children who happened to also be in attendance during the Gay Days event. Disney says it does enforce the rules, but one of the cameramen taping the activities says that it was he who was approached by Disney security instead, and that the security personnel asked him to put the camera away.

On the heels of the release of the video and accompanying report, people are now protesting a planned Gay Community Day at a Philadelphia Phillies game. In a story posted on the WorldNetDaily website, although this is the first such event at Veterans Stadium, it is said that some people are worried about a strong homosexual attendance at the game because of an incident in Philadelphia earlier this year when 11 homosexual men were arrested after a father and son walked into a department store restroom and saw them engaging in sex acts there.

Certainly, there's not a one of us who, when we love someone, doesn't hold our lover's hand, or kiss our lover good-bye and hello on the front porch or as we enter and leave our vehicles. These public displays of affection are part of the fabric that binds us to our partners and that shows the world our pride in our partners and the relationship we have. I contend that identical displays of affection are acceptable in public for homosexual couples as well, something with which the religious group mentioned above would almost certainly strenuously disagree.

But where I draw the line, and where I find myself in the unusual situation of actually agreeing with this fundamentalist Christian group, is the behaviors described - and shown! - at this year's Gay Days. And where I stand with the Philadelphia protesters is in the disgust and outrage I feel about grown men being so irresponsible and selfish as to engage in sex acts in a very public restroom where anyone of any age could walk in at any time.

Do I think homosexuals should be treated just the same as everybody else? Yes, I do. But first, I think a certain segment of that group is going to have to start behaving just the same as everybody else, or face the same consequences the rest of us would. That's not discrmination. That's true equality. And it's clearly past time a little equality started getting applied.

Originally posted from 07-27-03 to 08-03-03
I Want My Mommy!
by Lady Liberty

It was widely reported recently that trial lawyers and a consumer health group are targeting ice cream manufacturers and sellers for litigation. It seems that ice cream has turned out to be fattening, and this particular coalition blames the failure of ice cream makers to find healthier ingredients, or to put warnings on menus, for obesity in America today. Although some people think such threats and lawsuits have gone too far, I just want to take this opportunity to thank the lawyers and the health group for their efforts on my behalf. You see, I had no idea up until now that products made largely of sugar and butterfat might not be good for me in quantity!

I am also delighted that some people have sued restaurants such as McDonalds. Until those lawsuits were filed, how was I to know that deep fried potatoes might not be both a low calorie delight as well as a particularly healthful food? And you cannot imagine how surprised I was to learn that some restaurants serve hot coffee that's actually hot! Thankfully, people who burned themselves gulping the drink or putting it between their legs while they drove served to let all of us know that our hot drink might not be cold.

As a former smoker, I should also confess that the warning labels cigarette manufacturers were forced to put on their packaging many years ago meant nothing to me. I found the pretty letters quite lovely, and the stark white box they were printed in to be just another decorative element on the attractive packages. It wasn't until lawyers repeatedly claimed that smokers didn't know that smoking was bad for them that I finally understood that the warnings might have meant something, although they were so obscure and unpublicized that I can't imagine how I was to have guessed.

Let's not forget the tragic story of the baseball player who burned himself while ironing his shirt, either. Poor John Smoltz burned his chest because he happened to be wearing the shirt at the time he was ironing it. Apparently, he didn't read the warning label that comes with every iron these days advising consumers that they should remove their clothing before ironing it. Perhaps the warnings should be larger or more brightly colored to ensure we see them and read them. Until such changes are made, it's clearly the iron manufacturer's fault that the man suffered such an injury!

One of my own local newspapers published a list of tragic firearms mishaps several years ago while it was editorializing against any concealed carry legislation in the state. The number one tragedy on the list was the story of a man who, having purchased a shotgun, was showing his girlfriend how cool it was. Shouting, "Look, honey! Look what I can do!" he put the barrel of the gun in his mouth and manipulated the trigger with his toe. The gun, which was loaded at the time, worked perfectly. Obviously, the poor victim had no idea that putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger might be dangerous. Perhaps this is why the firearms industry is the latest target of lawyers and special interest groups.

When I was a small child, my mother used to grab me by the arm to pull me away from traffic, or to stop me from touching such fascinating things as a hot stove or a sharp knife. Without Mom nearby, though, I have a difficult time determining just what I should do and should not do, and what's harmful and what isn't. It's sure a good thing that the government and a number of eager legal beavers are ready to step into the breach left by Mommy when I moved out of the house! God only knows what I might do if I'm not thoroughly protected by those who are interested only in my own good.

But until the lawyers can get everything set up to where I'm perfectly safe at all times, I think it might be a really good idea to print at least one more warning label. We'll need to ensure that the glue is hypoallergenic of course, and that we carefully direct folks as to which side to affix to their foreheads, but I think it'll work just fine if we explain its proper use. The label should say "Warning: Stupid Person Without a Clue." After all, it's becoming readily apparent that we need to watch out for all of those stupid folks. It seems it's always somebody else's responsibility whenever they do something stupid, and that somebody else needs to be blamed. I don't want that somebody else to be me! Besides, when you think about it, those stupid people are a whole lot more dangerous to the rest of us than some inanimate object, like an iron or a gun, which really represent no problem at all. Until, that is, one is picked up by a Stupid Person...

Originally posted from 06-15-03 to 06-22-03
Don't Kid Yourself
by Lady Liberty

I don't like children. I never have. Some people have called me selfish because I don't want a child, and my answer to them is this: You're right. Aside from the fact that I genuinely don't like kids, I have a lifestyle with which children would interfere. I'm politically active (big surprise!). I work full time, and I like what I do. I have a busy social schedule that combines participation in local events, interaction with friends, and volunteer projects. Besides, have I mentioned that I don't like children? I may be selfish, but it seems to me I'm a better parent than those people who are either too blind or too proud to admit that they, too, are unsuited to play the role of mom or dad.

Why do people have children? There are a number of reasons. Among those I've heard:

• To save a marriage - Big mistake. Kids aren't easy to raise. Babies are more than a little demanding of time and emotional resources. If a marriage is already on the rocks, imagine adding sleepless nights, no time off to be alone together, and crying that, on some occasions, just won't quit. Throw in the financial burden, and the marriage will probably end sooner rather than later. Two selfish people - people who placed the hopes for their own relationship above the interests of an innocent child - will now pay the price. But their selfishness will result in the unfortunate child paying with them.

• To leave a legacy - What did you have in mind? Kids don't often grow up to be the way you plan them. All a good parent can do is teach a child as much as possible and then get out of the way. My parents are good and decent people. They taught me much of what they knew, and impressed on me all of what they believed. Some of their teaching rubbed off; much of it didn't. It's a good thing they weren't expecting to leave a legacy! Only a selfish person would demand a child follow in his or her footsteps. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of selfish people out there.

• To fulfill a parent's own dreams - Sure, you wish you'd been on the high school baseball team or that you'd taken a chance on being in that beauty pageant. But what if your kid isn't particularly coordinated? What if she's, well, kind of plain? Forcing children into the mold of what you were unable to accomplish yourself is frustrating for you and painful for them at best. And the only motivation you could possibly have for behaving in such a manner is pure, unadulterated selfishness.

What about those people who decide they want children, and who wait until they're stable enough to deal with the stresses of a family? Some of them are at least as selfish as those who have kids for any or all of the wrong reasons. How so? They demand that any child must be of their own blood for it to be theirs.

Consider for a moment the case of the septuplets born to a lower middle class Iowa couple in 1997. They had a tiny one-bedroom house. Dad was a car salesman, a career not typically given to large paychecks. And yet the two got the money together to have fertility treatments and had a child. But that wasn't enough. The pair had to have another child, and it had to be of their own blood (having seen the family numerous times on television, it's hard to guess what it is that's so valuable about their genetics that it must be passed on). Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey engaged in more expensive fertility treatments which resulted in the birth of seven children in one "litter". At the time, Bobbi told reporters that having seven babies was "God's will". No it wasn't. God didn't want her to have children of her own at all. These selfish people took a vast amount of resources for their own fulfillment, and left a couple of babies stricken with cerebral palsy and a household that needs financial assistance to survive (a house, van, supplies, and even college scholarships were donated, but much more will be needed in the coming years).

So add to the list of bad reasons to have a child one more: biological urges. Animals can breed. As humans, we should be able to overcome our biology until the timing is right. And if our biology doesn't cooperate, the couple who truly wants parenthood will recognize that it's the child that makes them parents, not the childbirth.

A child is a tremendous burden where emotions, finances, time, and energy are concerned. The demands for attention are non-negotiable. It is not possible for a man or a woman to be both selfish and a good parent. They must be willing to literally stop in their tracks at the whim or the need of their child. Good parents aren't rare, but they're not common, either. Mediocre parents, on the other hand, are rampant. And it's largely mediocrity in parenthood that's resulted in the rash of crime and other assorted misbehaviors from kids.

Mother's Day and Father's Day are both over for the year. We've given the jewelry or flowers, the power tools or ties, and we've sent the sentimental greeting cards. Before next year, it might be a good idea for those who are thinking about parenthood to consider all of the bad reasons for becoming parents. It would be even better for them to remember that there's only one good reason to have children at all: because you can't imagine living without them.

If that's true, then dreams for the future are only of happiness and fulfillment, not of specific accomplishments. Blood doesn't matter. An athletic or intellectual pedigree doesn't matter. All that counts is a the smile on the face of the baby in your arms. Until that's the case, a good parent-to-be must admit to selfishness and hold off on parenthood. To do anything less is to strive for mediocrity at best. Unless that's what we want for our children, why would we grasp at it for ourselves?

Originally posted from 05-18-03 to 05-26-03
Learned Behavior
by Lady Liberty

This past Friday evening, I was one of a group of several people gathered at a local bar for a few drinks at the end of a long work week. As we all talked about the various trials and tribulations we'd each endured on the job and our plans for the weekend, one man laughingly described a conversation he'd had with a friend earlier in the day. The man, who is a teacher at a local school, teased his buddy who teaches in a neighboring district. "How many times have the police been to your building today?" he asked. "None," the friend replied. "They've been to our building three times today," the first man responded. As those of us seated around the table gaped at him, he added matter-of-factly, "That makes nine arrests in the last two months."

The town we live in is not a large one with a rough and tumble inner city school district. The man does not teach at a juvenile detention facility, nor does he work with high-risk high school students. He does, in fact, teach at the local junior high school, where the oldest students are perhaps 14 or 15 years old. One of the most recent arrests of which he spoke involved an altercation between him and a young female student. It seems the girl didn't want to go to class when the bell rang. When the teacher told her she needed to get to class, she began to hurl obscenities at him at the top of her lungs. As he tried to quiet her, she informed him - still at high volume - that he wasn't her father and she could do as she pleased. The police removed her from the building, and she is now doing as she pleases elsewhere.

The teacher, although not overly shaken by the event, told his superiors that he was going to take the rest of the day off. He used the time to file charges against the girl with the authorities. He was given the time to do so without question because it's written into his contract that teachers can take a mental health break at any time they're physically or verbally abused or threatened by a student. He and other teachers are prohibited in that same contract, however, from taking any action of any kind to actually discipline a student.

A child who will use the kind of language this teacher reported, and who will use it in the most disrespectful manner possible to an authority figure, has obviously had little or no parental guidance or discipline through the years. With parents unwilling to discipline children, and teachers prevented from disciplining children, it shouldn't be so surprising that the police pay regular visits to a junior high school. And yet it's still a bit of a shock to realize we're not discussing tough-talking 18 year-old drop-outs, but rather 13 year-old girls who should be anxious to take advantage of extra-curricular activities, and who have crushes on cute boys and are looking forward to being old enough to date.

In Illinois, it was a group of high school girls, most of whom were supposedly the "good kids", who got in a good deal of legal trouble over what they call hazing. Police, however, are calling it assault. The senior girls were engaging in an annual event where juniors are welcomed to a powder-puff football squad with some hazing from their upperclassmen. In years past, the event was a fun rite of passage. This year, however, five girls landed in the hospital after they were among a group showered with pig intestines, covered with human excrement, knocked down, and kicked repeatedly. The event was caught on video tape, so the culprits are identifiable, and the extent to which the so-called hazing was escalated is painfully obvious.

That the hazing got out of hand is bad enough. But as school officials discuss disciplining those involved with measures ranging from ten day suspensions to expulsion, one parent in attendance at a school board meeting pleaded lenience for his daughter. He said the 18 year-old's plans to attend college next fall would be jeopardized if she was expelled, and he asked that the punishment be changed to a shorter suspension and perhaps community service. Even if school board officials don't capitulate (there's no indication at the moment that they will), this father is teaching his nearly grown daughter that inappropriate actions need not have negative consequences if only you have some reason punishment will hurt too much.

The mother of one of the victims of the hazing was there when the man spoke, and she countered by asking him if he'd be so inclined toward lenience if it was his daughter that had had human feces shoved in her mouth. Perhaps he may have been. After all, in making pleas to have excused the inexcusable, he's clearly talking through quite a mouthful of something.

The school board members are taking action based on violations of the school's hazing policy and sections of the Illinois School Code. But police may take the matter further. The high school's investigation has purportedly concluded that the girls involved broke assault and battery laws. It's likely that a conviction or a guilty plea to such a charge would look even worse on a school transcript or a résumé than would a suspension or expulsion.

School officials are clearly doing what they can, but through the years they've limited themselves to the point where today they're all but helpless to discipline a student. The incessant focus on self-esteem in the classroom may have made kids think more highly of themselves. But it's also made them think only of themselves. And parents are becoming more and more willing to demand that even the most egregious behavior by their children be ignored or excused. As a result, kids are becoming less and less responsible, and more and more dangerous to themselves and others.

At one time, the last resort of the teacher was to send an unruly student to the principal's office. It was then that a parent was frequently called, and the quaking child waited for the wrath that was mom or dad to come down on his head. But in an era where parents are told they shouldn't strike a child, or even raise a voice to a child, many kids have no fear and very little respect for authority in the home. And when teachers are taught to consider a child's feelings first rather than his performance when giving grades or offering criticism, kids have no respect for teachers, either. Is it really such a surprise, then, that so many kids have no respect for each other?

Originally posted from 05-11-03 to 05-18-03
Laci's Legal Legacy
by Lady Liberty

Sad things happen every day. But there haven't been too many sadder things reported lately than the murder of young mother-to-be Laci Peterson. In the midst of all of the grief, it turns out the Peterson case is also providing a good deal of political fodder for the abortion debate.

The recovery of the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, have dominated the news recently. A woman's partially dismembered and decomposed body was found washed up on a California beach; a short distance away, the body of an infant boy, umbilical cord still attached, was discovered. Tests confirmed the identity of the corpses, and Laci's husband, Scott, has been arrested and charged with a double homicide.

Laci's devastated parents have appeared tearfully on television pleading for justice for their daughter and unborn grandson. Scott's parents also ask for justice, but they want it for their son who, they claim, was arrested in a rush by police who had made up their minds as to his guilt with little or no evidence to support their conclusions. As for Scott Peterson himself, he had been having an affair in the weeks prior to his wife's murder, and when he was picked up by police was seen to have dyed his hair and grown a goatee, and was carrying $10,000 in cash. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

However circumstance, opportunity, or motive might appear, Scott Peterson must be presumed innocent until such time as he's proven guilty in a court of law. Any arguments one way or the other will soon be centered in a courtroom where a jury will consider whether or not he's guilty of a double homicide. But it's that very charge - whether Peterson is found guilty or not - that could also end up in court.

In the state of California, a person found guilty of murder can be punished only with jail time. A double murder, though, makes a convicted criminal eligible for the death penalty. It was, at least in part, the desire to try Peterson for his life that led authorities to decide on the double homicide charge. (Interestingly, if Peterson were charged under federal statute, he could only be charged with a single murder. Federal law considers crimes committed only against the pregnant woman herself. Legislation is now being introduced in both the House and Senate to change that.)

Some women's groups reacted to the charge almost before the ink was dry on the arrest warrant. Because Laci's baby had not yet been born at the time of her death, these women believe any suspect should be charged with one murder and not two. They fear that classifying the death of an unborn child as a homicide confers personhood on a fetus and thus has serious repercussions where abortion is concerned. Although they have a point, their fears are unfortunately likely to prove groundless. After all, though California law specifically considers the intentional killing of a fetus to be murder, an exception is included in the law for surgical abortions.

There are already laws on the books in many states that pertain to the death of an unborn child. Each of those laws, regardless of what other words they include, as an "except for abortion" clause somewhere in the content. In some states, deliberately inducing miscarriage is a crime. Except, of course, for abortion which can actually be defined as the deliberate induction of a miscarriage. In some states, causing the death of a fetus by injuring its mother (such as in a drunk driving accident) will result in charges for killing the unborn child. Again, injuries to a fetus are exempted from criminal statues in the case of abortion.

In a Connecticut case decided recently, the State Supreme Court upheld the assault conviction of a man who attempted to induce an abortion by slipping his girlfriend labor-inducing medication. Defense attorneys had argued that the fetus was his target and so he couldn't have assaulted the girlfriend. The justices unanimously ruled, however, that the fetus was a part of the woman much like "teeth, skin, and hair" all of which are eventually shed. Bizarrely, this decision didn't make either side of the abortion debate happy. Pro-life forces say that this "body part" can have a different blood type, and certainly has different DNA than the mother, so how can it be just another part of her? Abortion advocates didn't care for an addendum offered by one of the justices that said a fetus could be considered both a part of another's body and its own separate entity.

The entire crux of the abortion debate hinges on when a fetus is a life. And that's why the debate continues to be ongoing. There is a very fuzzy line that no one has been able to adequately define in a manner on which everyone agrees. For example, some religions believe that, without a soul, a fetus isn't human. Catholics and some others believe that fetuses are endowed with a soul at conception. The Bible says babies are given a soul with their first breath. Others think of a growing fetus as a baby as its features become more and more recognizable as such (though most of them don't know that recognizability comes quite early in a pregnancy).

Those who don't consider religious arguments typically think a fetus under the age of about three months or so is less than human. They're countered by those who say such fetuses have the undeniable potential to become human in a short amount of time (which, of course, opens the argument that all sperm are sacred because they, too, are potential humans, something which many Catholics also believe, but that's not a part and parcel of the argument today). Most people think that fetuses that have reached an age of viability - in other words, can survive independently of the mother - are human, a place into which Laci's 8-month fetus certainly fits. But with modern medicine making continuous progress, fetuses born as early as 5 and 6 months have survived and grown into healthy children. So that line, too, is rapidly becoming less defined.

The law, on the other hand, cannot be ambiguous. If it were, there would be too many exceptions to the rules and that would result in chaos in a relatively short order. That the Petersons could have terminated Laci's pregnancy legally and without repercussion on the one hand, and that California could consider the death of the fetus a homicide on the other is a dichotomy that represents a threat to the law itself as well as to those who think abortion isn't murder. Perhaps the first and best step in cleaning up the ethical and legal mess we've made is to straighten out such conundrums.

What abortion rights advocates likely fear the most right now is the overwhelming public consensus that Scott Peterson should be charged with a double homicide. The memorial service held for Laci Peterson on May 4 was for her and her son, not for her alone, and large numbers of people grieved for both of the dead. The line has now clearly been moved back from birth to 8 months. That's a start.

Originally posted from 04-13-03 to 05-11-03
On the Front Lines of Feminism
by Lady Liberty

A few weeks ago, PFC Jessica Lynch was just another soldier in just another support capacity in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Then her convoy made a wrong turn in the desert and was attacked by Iraqi soldiers. In the ensuing firefight, both Americans and Iraqis died, and Jessica was taken captive. After her whereabouts were reported to coalition forces, a daring rescue was staged, and PFC Lynch found herself once again in the hands of friendly forces. She has also ended up at the center of a media circus.

Many people are calling Jessica a hero now. In fact, there's an online thank you to Jessica for her heroism that's been set up by the people at MillionsofAmericans.com. But she is really no more or less a hero than those other American soldiers who are in Iraq today. Anyone who volunteers for military service knows what he or she potentially risks, and yet they volunteer anyway. Certainly that's heroic in and of itself. But she signed up more to get money for college than to defend her country, and that's largely a calculated gamble rather than an unselfish act of courage.

Certainly her reasons for joining the Army have nothing to do with the fact that she reportedly fought back when the Iraqi soldiers attacked and may have killed or wounded a few before she was taken into custody. But isn't that what any armed soldier would have done, particularly when confronted by the equally armed enemy? Yes, she suffered horribly at the hands of the Iraqis (two broken legs, a broken arm, an injured back, at least one bullet wound, and reportedly some torture to top it off). But suffering something over which you have no control isn't necessarily heroic. A strong will? Yes. But heroic? The Iraqi lawyer who risked everything, including his life and the lives of his wife and child, to get word to the Americans as to Jessica's status and location is the real hero. He didn't need to do anything, but he freely chose to risk it all, and he didn't stand to get tuition money or a medal for it, either.

Of course, the fact that a woman was captured and tortured has reignited the debate over women in combat. But first and foremost, PFC Lynch wasn't assigned to a combat position. She was assigned to offer support to those who were in combat. She never would have seen any enemy fire from close range if the convoy hadn't somehow taken that wrong turn. Perhaps there are arguments for or against women on the front lines, but Jessica Lynch shouldn't rightfully be central to any debate position. Her circumstances were the result of an accident. And as for whether or not women should even be allowed in positions that might accidentally come under fire, well, at least one commentator suggests, "Why Don't They Ask Jessica Lynch?" Writer Martha Ackerman says that appeals to protect women often result in prohibiting women from that which they have the skills and the right to do, a position which has real merit.

On the other hand, one has to wonder if such a daring rescue, risking the lives of a number of special operations troops, would have been attempted if Jessica were a man. If the answer to that question is "yes", then women in services comparable to Jessica's don't pose a problem. The answer, however, might be "no". According to an article originating with Scripps Howard News Service and reprinted at DA*DI, the "Rescue of Jessica Lynch is Highly Unusual in History". In fact, it may be the first successful raid since World War II. And previous attempts were typically made to rescue groups of people, not a single soldier. If the case can be made that Jessica's capture drew more attention from military planners because she was a woman, then the case can also be made that a number of men were placed in deliberate danger solely to rescue her. And that well illustrates the often purported added danger to men in combat that women on the front lines could conceivably cause.

Regardless of the rationale behind the rescue or the suffering she endured, PFC Jessica Lynch is coming out of this ordeal with substantially more than the hope of tuition money. In fact, she won't be needing tuition money at all. Two colleges have already offered her full scholarships once she's ready to enroll. As for spending money, well, NBC is already talking about making a movie about her ordeal. Her medical prognosis is good, and her future seems assured. It's almost enough to make you forget that there are still other POW's in Iraq, and that Lynch wasn't the only woman among them. So far, I've not heard of any movie deals or Hawaiian vacations being offered for any of the others.

As difficult as it must be for those who've fought and been wounded in Iraq to see the attention Lynch is getting, how much worse must it be for those captured and held in Viet Nam? Some endured for years before their release, and returned back home where they not only weren't adored by the media but were frequently the targets of disdain from the public. Weren't their sacrifices, too, made in the name of liberty? And don't they also deserve our gratitude?

It seems to me that the many rewards offered to PFC Jessica Lynch are, in fact, because she's female. Viet Nam was an unpopular war, but Scott O'Grady (the pilot downed behind enemy lines in Bosnia who survived a harrowing week hiding from enemy soldiers, eating bugs and grass, before his rescue) didn't get the kind of attention Lynch is enjoying. POWs from Desert Storm didn't get the kind of attention Lynch is enjoying, either. But none of them were petite, blonde, and pretty.

I don't mean to minimize the contributions made by Jessica Lynch. I deeply appreciate that, whatever her reasons, she joined the Army and willingly went to fight for freedom. I feel terribly sorry for her suffering, and wish her a complete recovery. But I also wish she'd get her thanks not for being rescued, but for being there at all. I would hope her reward would consist of the admiration and respect of those for whom she fought rather than the many gifts she's being offered. And I think she should get the same medal that men in her position would receive, no more and no less. If you want true equality, there it is.

Unfortunately, the women who claim to want true equality have been busy. They've been staying in cozy hotels and homes, dressed in comfortable clothes, and walking back and forth near the gates of Augusta National. The biggest danger they've faced is a lack of media coverage for their protests. In comparison, that does make PFC Jessica Lynch look pretty damned heroic after all.

Follow-up: In recent days, there have actually been suggestions that Jessica Lynch receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is a medal rarely given. It is reserved for the most heroic of men and women, and is often awarded posthumously as a result. To give Lynch such an award would be to dishonor those brave few who have received the Medal in the past. Quite simply, she doesn't even come close to deserving it. If people are looking for a worthy recipient in this conflict, they need look no farther than one Sgt. Smith, a man whose heroism saved many lives at the expense of his own. Smith's story is as underreported as Lynch's has been overhyped. Take a moment now if you will to read more about Smith and what he did. Now compare his story with Lynch's. I think even Jessica Lynch hereself would agree that there is no comparison.

Originally posted from 02-23-03 to 03-02-03
Campaign of Lies
by Lady Liberty

In the decades since the institution of the so-called War on Drugs, there's been little success by authorities in stemming the flow of illicit substances into the country and onto the streets. Some pinned their hopes to an anti-drug educational campaign geared to minimize any demand for drugs. That, too, has been unsuccessful.

The lack of success in the War on Drugs from an authoritarian standpoint is easily explained when you realize that the profits are just too great. Despite the threat of significant jail time, the tempting lure of serious cash keeps the smugglers and dealers in business, and provides for ready and willing replacements for those few who are taken of the streets by police. This is one of the most compelling arguments offered by those in favor of decriminalizing illegal drugs. It is also, however, the topic for another essay.

As an aside, arresting the end user and imposing draconian sentences have absolutely no effect on the dealers, either, and little effect on other users. What it does affect is the families of people who may have been perfectly functional and contributing members of society, but who occasionally chose a recreational activity frowned upon by the powers that be. But this, too, is another essay in the making.

It is the other half of the War on Drugs - the anti-drug educational campaigns - that has drawn my attention recently. The current government campaign involves the claim that anyone who purchases drugs is helping to fund terrorism. Of course, that's almost entirely untrue. And, in a nutshell, there's the reason for the ongoing failure of the educational campaigns: they're lies. And kids know when they're being lied to.

Most marijuana comes from Mexico or illicit fields in the United States. Mexican nationals, to the best of my knowledge, are not commonly known as terrorists in the US or anywhere else. Cocaine comes almost entirely from a few South American countries. Now while the drug cartels terrorize people on a local scale and cause their governments a host of problems, they, too, are not terrorists as are implicated in the commercials.

Heroin comes from opium poppies, and Afghanistan used to grow fields of the flowers for just that purpose. Ironically, the US cut a deal with the Taliban to support a takeover of the existing government in exchange for the destruction of the poppy fields. The Taliban took over, aided and abetted by the US. The poppy fields, of course, weren't much affected by any of this because the Taliban needed money just like the former government needed money. The Taliban is certainly tied closely to terrorism, but it was the US government that worked with them originally, not the US drug user.

A few years ago, there was a series of anti-drug commercials that were meant to scare the pants off kids considering giving cocaine a try. A young man tries coke "just one time" and falls over dead, the victim of a cocaine-induced heart attack. Oooooh, scary! The problem is that we all know someone who has used cocaine and is still alive and kicking, and almost none of us know anyone who keeled over after snorting a single line. Even though a heart attack is possible, it's an extremely remote possibility. By using such an extraordinarily unlikely consequence as an example, it looked to kids like the grown-ups were lying.

Calling marijuana a "gateway drug" is based solely on a study that made such inappropriate use of statstical analysis that it was actually used in my university statistics classes as an example of how not to do an analysis. The study consisted of the survey of a number of heroin users. Each was asked, "Have you ever used marijuana?" An overwhelming majority answered in the affirmative, and the researchers said this "proved" that smoking pot led to the use of harder drugs. Now watch while I use identical methodology to "prove" going to church causes murder: Ask every man and woman on death row, "Have you ever been to church?" What do you think the majority will say? And do you, for a second, think having attended a church service made them do what they did? Kids are young, not stupid.

Of course, everything we say about marijuana to kids is colored by the fact that we say it with a gin and tonic in our hand. And folks, there's absolutely no difference between pot and alcohol. Well, there's one. Too much alcohol can kill you, while the there has never been a single instance of a marijuana overdose. Oh, yes. Alcohol can be physically addictive. Marijuana isn't (although for some people there may be a psychological dependence developed). So now we're not only liars, we're the worst kind of hypocrite. And kids know it.

Do I believe that drug use is harmless? No. I don't think kids, whose brains and bodies are still developing, should use any kind of drug. So what would I tell kids to educate them about drug use? The truth.

LSD won't make you think you can fly and jump off a highrise building to prove it. It can, however, damage your chromosomes, meaning you'll give birth someday to little monsters. Might not happen. But it might. That's the truth, it's a scary truth, and there's no way to tell if it'll happen to you or not until it does.

Cocaine almost certainly won't give you a heart attack. It will, however, put a hole in your wallet big enough to drive a truck through. The high doesn't last long, so you'll be forced to get more and more. And if you keep it up, your nose will have a hole in the septum almost as big as the one in your wallet, something which those of the opposite sex will not find attractive. If you want to spend a lot of money, why not spend it on something that'll last longer than twenty minutes, like hip huggers which will last at least another half an hour before they're out of style again.

Heroin is wildly addictive, horribly expensive, and something about which no lies need be told to describe how truly dangerous it is. Purity differs so much from purchase to purchase that a quantity that did little for you last time will kill you between one heartbeat and the next this time. Dirty needles cause nasty infections; shared needles can cause fatal infections like AIDS. Why pretend buying heroin will fry your brain like an egg when the reality is so much more graphic and frankly even worse?

Crystal meth - a powerful form of speed - is, according to news reports, gaining in popularity. The manufacture of it is dangerous (the chemicals are highly volatile), but the profits are good enough that some people will risk it. Before you stick any of it up your nose or in your pipe, though, run out and check under Mom's sink. Grab a bottle of ammonia, and take a big whiff. After your eyes are done watering and the burning in your nose subsides and you've finished choking, take note of the fact that ammonia is a primary ingredient in methamphetamine. Ouch! Explain how that's a good idea! The fact that it can be addictive and will burn a hole through your nose quicker than cocaine is incidental, and that it's not particuarly cheap, either, is a distant third on the scale of worries.

As far as marijuana goes, well, I'm in favor of across the board legalization and won't hide that. It does need to be treated with age restrictions, however. A student can't learn in school while high on pot any more than he can while he's drunk on vodka. And any foreign substance - whether it be alcohol, THC, or nicotine - represents a danger to developing bodies and organs. But again, if these reasons are good enough to justify the age restrictions, why aren't they good enough to tell the kids?

There is, unfortunately, little doubt that the Drug Czar's office will continue as it has in the past, wasting taxpayer dollars on enforcement that will never work, and on educational programs that don't work. After all, DARE (Druge Abuse Resistance Education) programs have now been shown in a number of studies to be worthless (at best; in a few studies, DARE participants were actually more likely to try drugs than students not enrolled in the program), yet the program remains a mainstay in elementary schools everywhere. At least some of us might consider taking matters into our own hands, actually talking to kids, and giving them reason to both stay away from drugs and to respect us all the more by telling them the truth.

I'd like to help out with all that, I really would. I'm afraid I'm too busy right now, though. I need to head over to the local car dealership to trade in my four wheel drive. I saw a commercial last week that said anybody who drives an SUV is supporting terrorism.

CORRECTION/ADDENDUM:

Last week, I wrote an essay entitled "Campaign of Lies". It addressed the fact that much of the government's educational campaign against drugs involves exaggeration or outright falsehood. It was my contention that the campaigns are so unsuccessful in some significant part because kids know they're hearing lies. One of several examples I used involved LSD and whether or not it would make you jump out a window, thinking you could fly (it won't). I said that it could, however, cause chromosomal damage and that maybe we should just tell kids the truth since the truth was plenty scary enough.

I did not get that information from a government source or an anti-drug organization. I got it privately from a doctor that I believed I could trust to tell me the truth. As it turns out, either he didn't know any better or he was lying, too. A reader was kind enough to let me know that there is no definitive evidence that LSD causes such damage, and pointed me in the direction of some research on the subject. What I learned was this: The study most often credited with "proving" the point involved massive amounts of LSD literally bathing cells in petri dishes. The same study showed that aspirin and caffeine both caused greater damage than did the LSD.

If you're interested in learning more of the facts for yourself, consider reading The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, Chapter 50, How LSD Was Popularized, 1962-1969 and Hallucinogens, Chapter 16 of a University of Arizona publication on the same general topic.

The general thrust of "Campaign of Lies" still stands as I wrote it: tell the truth to kids, and we'll get better results in preventing them from using drugs as children. If I could add a second direction to the essay, I think I'd suggest we told the truth to adults as well. Thanks to the reader who was able to tell me kindly that I was wrong, and who generously pointed to some very helpful factual information available online.

Lady Liberty
March 5, 2003


Originally posted from 02-09-03 to 02-17-03
No Applause, Please
by Lady Liberty

In years past, it wasn't uncommon for a celebrity to endorse an automobile or a cigarette brand, and stars often donated their time and fame to various charities. Of course, a few of the famous have also long been outspoken in their politics, but that was relatively rare. Movie studios and record labels placed a high premium on their stars' public image, and didn't want to chance an unpopular opinion alienating all those potential ticket or record buyers. Pitching a popular car, or leaning suavely in a doorway while smoking a cigarette, was different. But like the times of cigarette ads on TV, and for good or for ill, those more circumspect days are long gone.

Today, celebrities commit crimes and experience no public censure whatsoever. In fact, many see their box office cachet grow following their courtroom appearances. Stars who use drugs or who have extramarital affairs still get job offers and are even defended by some fans. Freely asserting a political opinion, even an unpopular one, now carries little professional risk The notion that only overwhelmingly negative publicity can be less than positive has opened the floodgates, and the stars now feel just as free as anyone else to open their mouths and insert an expensively shod foot.

Certainly, celebrities are as protected under the First Amendment as are the rest of us. They don't need anyone's permission to have or share their opinions, and they shouldn't need it. Celebrities are, however, often just as misinformed as the less famous. Again, that doesn't stop plenty of people from knowing what they think. The difference, however, is that very few people get the media attention that stars do with virtually every pronouncement they choose to publicly make. Still, the First Amendment applies, and if someone wants to say something foolish in front of thousands or millions of people, they have every right to do so.

For example, award-winning actor Ed Harris, speaking before a crowd of abortion rights activists on January 21, said that George W. Bush was less than a man because he was against abortion. Harris also freely admitted that he believed his status as an actor might help bring more people onto the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. Now I personally know a few rather effeminate men who are staunchly in favor of abortion rights. I also know a couple of men no one would dare suggest were less than manly who are firmly anti-abortion. It seems to me that "manliness" has less to do with such viewpoints than Harris might prefer. Still, in his statements, Harris was simply engaging in a debate wherein the primary tactics were insults and rallying cries, and he's far from the first to choose such a strategy. Essentially harmless in the long run, right?

Julia Roberts, speaking publicly during the presidential campaign of 2000, was all doe-eyed innocence when she proclaimed that "Republican" could be found in the dictionary between the words "reptile" and "repugnant". That's quite a bit more clever than Harris' repartée (do you supposed she relied on a scriptwriter for those words?), but still merely an offense composed of insults. Sticks and stones, yes?

Recently, the anti-gun George Clooney (coincidentally a great friend of Roberts') raised more than a few eyebrows when he personally attacked NRA President and Oscar® winning actor Charlton Heston by making fun of his Alzheimer's diagnosis. Some people were incensed; Clooney was unrepentant. Heston himself made light of the matter by saying he'd made it through World War II and he'd make it through this attack as well. So it's over and done with, isn't it?

The online news service WorldNetDaily, which frequently runs opinion polls on its website, ran a poll in connection with Clooney's comments. One of the answers respondants could choose was: Who cares what George Clooney says? I had my mouse pointer over that button and was ready to click when I suddenly realized something very important: Lots of people care what George Clooney says.

There are some famous people who are both celebrities and knowledgeable in one field or another. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve, both of whom have done a great deal of research into the conditions that affect them, have opinions about Parkinson's disease and paralysis that are extremely well-informed and doubtless of value. Ted Danson has long been personally active, and become expert, in beach clean-up programs. But while George Clooney has turned out to be a hell of a director (see Lady Liberty's movie review of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind), I've never heard that he's any kind of an expert on the Second Amendment. Despite that fact, plenty of people take Clooney's words to heart whether he's speaking about direction (something he clearly knows plenty about) or marriage (something he's admitted he's "really bad at") or civil liberties ( well, he's a good director).

Just as many people either can't or won't separate the informed opinion from the uninformed, many also assume that the position taken by someone who's famous is the right position to take. Perhaps this is because so many are too lazy to do the research involved in establishing an informed opinion of their own and adopt one that's widely publicized instead. Or maybe it's because they confuse admiring a star's talent with admiring the star himself. Regardless of the rationale behind it, there are plenty of people out there who don't question it if a star says it. And therein lies the problem.

A group calling itself Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits has started an online petition in the wake of the widely publicized letter, signed by 100 celebrities, that takes a strong position against any military action against Iraq. The petition says that wealthy celebrities are "abusing their status" and that those celebrities have no clear understanding of "what we support". The petition also accuses celebrities of using their fame and wealth to make their personal issues known to the rest of America while the rest of us have no such opportunity. It's planned for the petition (which already has well over 10,000 signatures) to be delivered to actors Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell who were instrumental in putting together the letter against intervention in Iraq.

The petition is a fine idea, but it doesn't address the real problem. The fact is, Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell are against any war in Iraq. They have every right to their opinion, and they have every right to express that opinion in any way they see fit. The real problem is much more difficult to address than simply suggesting they have a bigger, better soapbox than do the rest of us from which to speak. Harkening back to the WorldNetDaily poll: Who cares what stars think? We may not, but too many do. And how do we stop that from happening?

Perhaps our best hope is that those stars who have different opinions will also start to speak up. A few weeks ago, Patricia Heaton did when she walked out of an awards program she found offensive. Last week, Jane Russell said (in unfortunately graphic terms) that she was a conservative. Bo Derek has quietly supported George W. Bush since the presidential campaigns. Popular rumor also says that Bruce Willis is a Republican. (Mr. Willis has a movie coming out soon. It would be nice if we saw to it that it did well at the box office.)

On the other hand, it might also be fun to hit those stars with whom we disagree right where they live: ignore them. Publicity thrives on continued word of mouth, so ignore them and ignore what they say. In the world of the rich and famous, is there anything worse than that?

[top] [Back to Our View] [2003 archives] [2002 archives] [home]

Originally posted from 02-17-03 to 02-23-03
Sexual Indiscrimination
by Lady Liberty

Some years ago, it became common for colleges to institute sexual codes of conduct on campus. Obviously, something so serious as rape or sexual assault has never been anything but a crime. But accusations of date rape or sexual harrassment, especially in a society that's become lightning quick to sue, made many university legal departments realize that school policies had to be clearly - and exhaustively - stated for students.

About ten years ago, one college (I believe it was Oberlin, but could be mistaken) made national news with its policy because of its minutely defined rules. As I said, I don't remember for sure which college received so much publicity at the time, but I remember well the policy because I was assigned it as a debate topic in a class I was taking at the University of Pittsburgh.

As many of you are doubtless aware, debaters are required to take both sides of an argument at one time or another. I was able to find many arguments against this particular code of conduct largely because it was, at least to my mind, the very definition of "overkill". For example, the policy said that every individual instance of physical contact required an individual request for permission and an individu