On the Other Hand

Crossing

2010-06-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

Noah rode the waters in a gopher wood ark,
Moses held his staff and told Yam Suph to part.
The Ark of the Covenant made Joshua’s way,
And Elijah’s old mantle held Jordan at bay.

With what talisman shall I command
The sea to roll back and give me land?
For the chariots of Egypt press this crowd
To the shoreline where the breakers break so loud.

The gulls cry like harpies, cycling through the air
And the wind pulls tangles in our tangled hair.
Children cling to mama’s skirt,
Wooden wheels traverse the dirt,

Till bird sounds are drowned by the charioteer’s lash
Whipping and cracking on horses’ muscled backs.
We know that sound; we are acquainted with that pain.
We’d rather drown than bow beneath the lash again.

Drown me, Lord, drown me in your gathered tears.
Carry me, current me, out past the piers.
Take me down deep, bury me whole,
Dig me into the silt below.

Cover my face with your cool, thick hand
There is no more sky, and no more land,
Only You in me, only me in You,
Floating serenely in a bath of blue.

Moses, Moses, in the water where you float,
With reeds for a curtain, and reeds for a boat,
Bearing a wound in your softest flesh,
A scar that marks you destined for death.

She found you wrapped in your cocoon,
She drew you out and cleaned the wound,
She trampled your basket, woven from reeds,
As a wasted thing you’d never need.

But here at the sea with Pharaoh bearing down,
A ship of reeds would be better than a crown.
Draw me out, Lord God, be a mother to me.
Reach down for the basket that floats in the sea.

Sweep me up before I go too far,
Or water seeps through the weakening tar.
Draw me out with hands both soft and sure,
And lay me down on a distant shore.

No longer a baby to be safely hid
In a woven casket with a little lid,
I lead these children whose faces go ash
At whirr of wheels and crack of lash.

The saved now savior, they look to me.
Save us, Mother Moses, from Pharaoh and sea.
The God of blood and locusts we invoke.
I am I am, who ripped you from the yoke.

Hear our prayer, while their voices fill our ears.
Blow upon the water and dry land appears.
Walls of water guard our backs.
Receive our prayer, drown our tracks.

#

Cartam et Atramentum

2010-04-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

This is what it’s like confiding
in one who does not reply.
This is what it’s like to invest
heart and hope in a letter no one reads.
To speak dreams into the air
and believe they will be captured,
nurtured, or at least beheld.
To whisper, How I love you,
Beloved, Beloved, how dearly I love you,
and believe the Universe embraces that devotion,
divides it into spectrums of light,
answers it on the voices of geese
and toads and locusts.

In the quiet spaces,
a coyote makes love to the moon
with a soul cry
that echoes off the ceiling
splattered with broken stars.
Ears pointed to the wet grass,
soft muzzle to the sky,
first a mournful solo
then the yipping of a lapdog
carries across the surface of the water
like a skipping stone.
Answer, all voices of the southern forest,
join the locomotive’s dragon blast.
Rise, rise to crescendo,
prophesy to me.

Now the train is coming,
coming, coming, coming,
here it’s coming, coming, coming
but from north or south I cannot say.

This is what it’s like to kneel
and stand and cross and bow
and recite to no one.
To say, The Lord be with you,
Then answer myself,
And also with you.

This is what it’s like to love
one unknown, unknowable,
yet all-knowing
and made known always
everywhere
in all things.
This is what it’s like to love a god.
This is what it’s like to love.

Speak to me through the songs of train cars
rushing north and south
between you and me,
with no cargo for us in their holds,
nothing to crate and load and haul,
only the message drawn from the tracks
the way horsehair moves over strings
trembling with hope and sadness,
visceral, compelling, seeming unceasing
for a while, it speaks,
Beloved, Beloved, Beloved.

Through the glass I see no steel, no crossties.
The train tracks lie somewhere else
across the creek,
beyond the trees,
past the ballfield lights
and the darkened school yard.
The train runs right through my
open chest.

JBT 03/2010

Crucified Woman

2010-03-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

Lately I've had this image in my mind, of a woman on a cross. Since I am no artist, I hoped someone had done the work for me. A quick Internet search revealed that such images date back several centuries.

At right is a really gorgeous painting I found online, with no attribution. (If you know the title or artist, please do tell!)

Daria Fand's oil painting "The Last of the Believers" (at left) was banned by the city of Honolulu, even though the art exhibit featured many other paintings of nude women. Fand states that the painting was intended as a commentary on the feminine experience, not on Christianity.

In Melbourne, a bronze statue titled "Woman on Cross" has caused quite a controversy, with one local pastor saying:

It is a blasphemous insult to the image of Jesus Christ who was crucified on the cross. There is something wrong with an artist who produces something so insulting to Christians."

An interesting standard, considering the offense Jesus Christ himself caused to the dominant religious community....

Some modern depictions of female crucifixion are political, usually feminist, like this image which speaks to the exploitation of women through biological and legal means:

However, the image itself is not new. Artists have captured the image of the crucified woman throughout history -- probably because it was an experience common to religious martyrs, regardless of gender. We like to pretend that humans are too humane to torture women, but history demonstrates that the martyrdom of women has always been at least as cruel as that experienced by men. Witch hunts, inquisitions and other religious purgings have often targeted women specifically.

This statue is in Belgium.

Hieronymus Bosch's depiction of the martyrdom of St. Julia dates back to the 16th century.

In the 19th century, Gabriel Cornelius Ritter von Max offered up a prettier, more sterilized version of Julia's crucifixion, and titled it "A Christian Martyr on the Cross."

(Left) Saint Librada is the patron saint of working women.

Before someone asserts that the old examples are different (less offensive) because they lack nudity, consider this piece by Raphael Collin, painted in 1890:

"Crucified Woman" is just the image I was looking for. The motion and the values are evocative. The young man rushes in, light, ethereal, almost shadowless. By contrast, the woman is framed by darkness, her body on display but her face obscured.

Jesus and Judas

2010-03-14T13:10:00.000-07:00

Why did it have to be a friend
Who chose to betray the Lord?
Why did he use a kiss to show them?
That’s not what a kiss is for.

Only a friend can betray a friend;
A stranger has nothing to gain.
Only a friend comes close enough
To ever cause so much pain.

Michael Card
Copyright © 1984 Mole End Music (ASCAP)
All rights reserved. Used by permission.

We have all been wounded at some time, by one who should have only loved us. There is a Judas in every life.

His name is synonymous with betrayal. We like to vilify Judas, to make him the enemy of Christ and the Gospel. The other apostles recorded his damnation with the indelible ink of history.

The truth is, Judas was not the only traitor. The friends and family who accompanied Christ to Jerusalem basked in the cries of “Hosanna!” When he spoke of his coming kingdom, they argued who would sit where. Then it became clear that the kingdom would come to earth not through glorious victory but through suffering and death. Nobody wanted to be part of that.

Jesus knew. Tonight, he said, you will all desert me. He washed their feet anyway. He prayed for Peter, knowing he would deny ever knowing Christ.

Jesus knew about Judas, too. He knew about the thirty pieces of silver before he wrapped the towel around his waist and knelt on the floor before him like a servant. He knew it as he ran his hands over the man’s grimy feet, cleansing away the stain and stink of the journey.

Later that night, Judas burst into the olive grove with an entourage of soldiers, and betrayed Christ the Lord with a kiss. As his heart was breaking, Jesus called Judas “friend.”

It is easy to kneel before Jesus, who gave up everything for us. But can you kneel at the feet of Judas? Can you wash his feet, when you know his heart?

Jesus had already taught the disciples to pray for their enemies. Perhaps they imagined he meant the Romans or the Sanhedrin. They didn’t think of Judas. They didn’t think of Peter. They didn’t think of their own untrustworthy hearts.

When we pray for our enemy, we call down grace on their life instead of comeuppance. At first our prayer is born of sheer obedience, but if we pray for our enemy diligently — daily — a change begins to take place. Prayer may not change the betrayer, but it changes the one who prays.

You cannot whisper over and over, “Lord, heal her,” without developing a true and earnest desire for your enemy to be healed. You cannot keep asking God to put bread on someone’s table without beginning to think of the surplus in your own cupboard. You cannot pray morning after morning for your enemy, your betrayer, without beginning to fall in love.

How long must you pray for an enemy? Only until the enemy goes away, and you find yourself kneeling in prayer for a friend.

So pray for Judas. Wrap the towel around your waist. Wash his feet. Love him.

#

From Ashes

2010-02-27T14:48:00.000-08:00

Ash Wednesday. Standing in the nave at St. Martin, I gaze up at the figure of Christ that hovers between the wood-paneled eaves. His posture straight and his face serene, he seems not to hang from the cross, but to lift it with the backs of his hands.

Liturgical worship is brand new to me, so each season unfolds like a child’s first Christmas, first ride on the city bus, first visit to the sea shore. What will I see? What will I hear? What will I feel?

This is what I feel, kneeling at the communion rail with ashes drying into the creases of my forehead: I feel lost. Lost isn’t the right word, I decide later. Lost is when you don’t know where you are. What is the right word, when you know where you are, and you know where you have been – but have no idea where you’re going next? Perhaps the word is human.

I was born on Ash Wednesday. This bit of trivia emerges like a memory stored in the bones. Ashes for sorrow. Ashes for grief. Ashes for penitence. Ashes for loss.

We all have our own ashes. We politely brush them into the urns of our hearts, where no one has to look at them. The ashes settle into a black and solid thing, until some stray memory or fresh injury shakes us, stirring up the dust.

One day a year, we wear our ashes on the outside. We see each other as we are. We confess that we are dust.

Ashes look like devastation, but they produce cleansing and renewal. Our ancestors used ashes to soften lye soap. We still spread wood ash on the garden to fertilize the soil.

So I kneel beneath this levitating Jesus in a place still exotic with new words and practices, yet as warm as a little nest. I am still the stranger, the vagabond who wanders in off the street to eat and drink and find warmth. Always finding what I need, I offer back everything, though my “everything” is but rags.

I’m still surprised when no one asks, “Why are you here?” Maybe no one asks because we are all vagabonds. We have all found the same warmth in each other, the same meat and drink in his body and his blood.

So we share this journey through the hope of Advent, the joy of Christmas, and the wonder of Epiphany. Now we prepare ourselves for the journey to the cross.

The church seasons play out like a perpetual catechism. They school us annually in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and the birth and mission of the Church. We remember who God is. We learn again who we are.

In Lent, we begin with ashes, but God does not leave us there.

#

A Hundred Voices Strong

2009-12-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

(Matthew 1:18-25)

I grew up in the era before over-scheduling. My brother, sister and I were free to our own devices, and as a result we developed our own traditions and rituals.

Jonathan invented The Never-Ending Journey, a cartoon strip penned on continuous reams of perforated computer paper in which a tribe of stick figures sojourned endlessly over various types of terrain. For years we added to the journey, subjecting the tribe to inclement weather and impossible landforms, and recording their wisecracks along the way. They never quite arrived at their destination.

We had traditions for Christmas also. It began with the first nativity. Jonathan put on his bath robe and declared himself a shepherd. We cast Jillanna as the Virgin Mary. I was the angel, standing on a chair to loom over Mary with such an exuberant expression that it scared Baby Jesus – who, I’m sorry to say, was being portrayed by a large Siamese cat wrapped in a baby blanket.

Eventually we moved beyond crèche play and simulated the entire church Christmas program. We lined up the dining room chairs to make pews, and plopped our dolls and stuffed animals in the empty seats. Jillanna played the piano while we sang. After I took up the offering, Jonathan delivered a good Southern hellfire-and-brimstone sermon.

But how can three voices be a choir? The thin notes distressed us greatly, and we determined to make our choir a hundred voices strong. By next Christmas season, we had devised a solution. We set two tape recorders side by side. First we recorded ourselves singing Christmas hymns. Then we played the cassette, and recorded ourselves singing with it. Over and over, we sang with our own voices, adding harmonies where we could. We recorded it again and again, until our choir was a hundred voices strong.

If a child’s work is play, then we worked hard to teach ourselves life lessons that would sustain us. Like the stick people in the Never-Ending Journey, we still travel endlessly over uncertain terrain in changing weather. What makes the story is not the hills and valleys or the strange hail storms, but our response to it all.

Our Christmas program taught us that with a little ingenuity, we can operate beyond the scope of our own limitations. A child can preach the Gospel. A small band of siblings can create a choir a hundred voices strong.

We learned, too, that church is what you make it. I’m thankful that my mother laughed at our antics and did not scold us for being sacrilegious. The truth is, we were practicing. This holiday season, millions will gather in thousands of chapels and churches to celebrate Christmas. To some degree, we are all just playing at church. The closer we come to the throne of God, the more we see that we are unworthy imposters – mere children in religious vestments. Yet our God welcomes us, and perhaps laughs at our antics.

So I’m going to look for that old cassette tape. I suspect that if you listen closely, beneath the hum of over-recorded static and the cracking of children’s untrained voices, you can hear the breath the angels.

#

What to give the children

2009-12-17T20:28:00.000-08:00

There were three of us children, and my parents raised us with intention. They bought a set of encyclopedias while my big brother was still in diapers and dutifully put the yearbook stickers in place each year. We had swim lessons, homemade birthday parties, and we were even on TV with Miss Marsha.

Despite all this attention to planning, the most important thing my parents ever did for us was done for someone else’s benefit.

When we were about 6, 8 and 9, my parents sponsored a refugee family from Cambodia. I do not remember the family discussions we must have had before their arrival. What I remember is a young woman clutching a toddler in an oversized dress, with her husband and brother at her side. Not one of them knew a word of English. They were at once frightened, and incredibly brave.

We children lost our basement playroom, where we had once been allowed to develop empires of Lego blocks and cardboard boxes for our marble people, or to drag out our mad scientist experiments for days or weeks with no clean-up call. The new people descended into this abode, and slept for most of a day. I perched on the steps, watching their brown feet for any sign of movement.

They smelled like spices I did not know, and they spoke volumes with dark eyes and timid smiles. I loved them right away. I was glad to give up my basement. I’d have given them my bedroom, my playhouse, and all my toys, too.

My mother prepared food she thought our guests would appreciate – chicken, rice and vegetables. The Cambodians sat around the table, staring. They would not eat. She called an interpreter, who looked at the spread and laughed softly.

“They’re confused,” she explained. “You’ve served an entire chicken. They’re probably worried this is all the meat for the next week. And that bowl of rice on the table – that’s only enough rice for one or two people.”

My mother took them to an Asian market. She stared wide-eyed as Len pointed to a fifty pound bag of rice. Soon Len was in the kitchen, treating us all to a sumptuous Cambodian meal. The rice was firm and dry, without the butter or sugar preferred here in the South. She spooned a steaming mound onto each plate, and garnished it with two bites of chicken cooked in ginger and a spoonful of steamed vegetables.

Our next task was to teach our guests English. When I remember my childhood home, I remember words taped all over the house: window, door, piano, and chair. My parents argued over “little tree,” which Mom worried they would assign to all pine trees. Dad compensated by labeling a dozen more trees.

We kids argued over weightier matters: Is it more Christian to teach Houn swear words, or to risk that he might not know if someone insults him at work?

Over time, our house guests learned the language and the culture. They worked hard, saved money, and eventually moved to Washington State to be near other family members. The experience was so positive, my parents opted to repeat it, later taking in members of Len’s extended family.

Although our Cambodian friends now live on the other side of the continent, they never forget to share their lives with us through calls, visits and photographs. Recently my parents were invited to a wedding, where they were honored as though their sacrifices had taken place only yesterday.

Of course, I do not remember any sacrifices. What I remember is growing up with an extra big brother to fend off the bullies. I remember holding a little brown baby and learning to say her name. I remember teaching a small boy to ride a bike. I remember Homp working in the garden and helping with the cows. I’m sure my parents (who will be embarrassed by this column) would say that everything they gave was repaid tenfold in terms of love, loyalty and generosity.

Because my parents were so intentional about our raising, they must have discussed the prospective impact of refugee sponsorship on their own developing children. They obviously believed the benefits to us children outweighed any risks. Still, I doubt they could have foreseen the impact it would have on us. Of all the things my parents did for us – the money spent on education, the hours baking in the sun to cheer us on at swim meets or freezing at football games, and all the shopping, chauffeuring, lecturing and worrying -- everything pales in comparison to this:

My parents taught us to love people before they have earned it.

Such unmerited love is the heart of Christmas. Not only can we say “God so loved the world,” (John 3:16) but also that “Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.” (Romans 5:8) God did not wait for us to realize we needed a Savior. God did not declare that in order to receive help we must first learn a language, or fill out the right paperwork, or be born a certain color or under a certain creed. Our Savior reached out to us in perfect love, not in spite of our destitute state, but because of it.

This is what we need to give our children. Give them a model of the world that empowers them to go forth in love, trusting the goodness of God and the resilience of the human spirit.

#

Free the Guppy

2009-09-05T07:18:00.001-07:00

Dutch court should let 13-year-old set sail

Last week, busy-bodies in the Netherlands stepped in to prevent Dutch teen Laura Dekker from becoming the youngest person to sail around the world solo. The Utrecht District court ordered Dekker to undergo two months of psychiatric evaluation, calling the plan “undeniably daring and risky.”

Of course the trip is daring and risky. Isn’t that the point? If circumnavigating the globe in a 26-foot sailboat were a walk in the park, other teens would be doing it. Currently the title for youngest person to sail round the world belongs to 17-year-old Mike Perham of Britain.

The trip takes two years. The court-ordered guardianship and evaluation will, at least, delay Laura beyond her fourteenth birthday, pushing her ETA beyond age sixteen. If she is allowed to set sail at the end of the evaluation period, it will not be the same voyage. Not only will Laura be older, she will also be forced by the seasons to take a different route than the one she has been plotting for three years.

It is admirable that a sea-faring nation like the Netherlands is more concerned with child safety than having another of its citizens listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. The question, then, is whether the state’s meddling is justified.

Laura Dekker did not merely wake up one morning and decide to sail around the world. The girl was born on a boat, and spent four years sailing the world with her parents. She began sailing solo at age six. At the age of 11, she crossed the Atlantic solo, spending seven weeks alone.

Isolation is the primary concern touted by those who want to stop Laura Dekker. Professor Micha de Winter of Utrecht University (not directly involved with the case) touted the guardianship and psychological evaluation as a wise decision. “It’s a big risk and an experiment with a child in which you don’t know what the results could be.” Winter indicated two years alone at sea could damage her physical and emotional development.

Winter’s view presumes that Laura would have no contact with the outside world, as if she would sail for two years without ever seeing or speaking to another human. Actually Laura plotted the journey to stick with busy shipping lanes. The need to reprovision the ship will necessitate many stops over the two-year period, and we do live in the electronic age. One can easily imagine a media following, a blog, and a plethora of satellite calls and emails.

For a generation that worries incessantly about children’s text messages and peer relationships, we are quick to overlook the value of solitude and hard work. We enjoy adventure movies where a young person faces off nature with no real preparation, but when a well-trained young person wants to undertake an epic voyage she has spent three years planning, we cry “Parental neglect!” and try to ground the sailor.

Amazing teens can do amazing things. We cheer our young Olympians without asking too many questions about their education, because we realize that their experiences are a different kind of education. We listen to young music phenoms without worrying too much if they miss some of the ordinary experiences of youth, because we recognize that they are allowed to experience the extraordinary.

Laura Dekker is an amazing young woman with a very big dream. I applaud her parents for getting behind that dream, and I look forward to following her journey.

#

Horton hears a he-cession

2009-07-25T14:52:00.000-07:00

Who the economy hits harder

Have you heard the latest buzz? Some writers and commentators are now calling the recession a “he-cession.” The new word, coined somewhere out on the blogosphere, incites fear and trembling in the masses because now the recession is actually affecting, well, men.

Times Online ran a headline: “Women are victors in ‘mancession.’” Women may not feel so victorious while enduring lower wages, shift cuts, and job loss, plus carrying a heavier share at home. Charlie Gibson touts the “he-cession” on ABC, serving up caricatures of women who just cannot respect their unemployed, apron-wearing Mr. Mom husbands.

Even Georgia Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond is falling for the hype. Thurmond released a white paper titled “Georgia Men Hit Hardest by Recession” in which he asserts that job loss is more devastating to men than to women. This long-held assumption implies that men’s work is important, while women’s employment is merely frivolous – perhaps an avenue to get out of the house, or to earn a little money for nail polish.

In reality, women’s jobs are extremely important. In fact, 40 percent of women are the sole breadwinners for themselves or their families. Many women value their careers and identify themselves by their profession. Job loss is a major crisis, often on a par with divorce. To pretend that only men are deeply affected is ridiculous and inaccurate.

Worse yet, Michael Thurmond actually uses the term “he-cession” as if it were a real word. Thurmond’s grammar teacher must be rolling in her grave. Surely she taught him about Latin roots. Perhaps she would like to remind him that “recession” consists of the Latin prefix “re” (back) and the root “cedere” (to go) and therefore refers to moving backward. If “he-cession” had any meaning at all, it would mean that “he” is moving on, not backward.

Reading Thurmond’s white paper, something bothers me a lot more than the painful etymology of the newly coined word. If the recession has become a “he-cession” now that the lay-offs are skewed toward males – what was it in September 2008 when the data showed women were losing their jobs twice as fast as men? We never heard dire warnings about a “she-cession.” In fact, the talking heads on TV and the Internet rarely mention women’s unemployment. If they bring up unemployed women at all, it is to utter scathing remarks about “welfare moms.”

The reason men have lost more jobs, is that men had more jobs to lose. 73% of men were part of the workforce before the recession, compared to less than 60% of women. According to the Center for American Progress, 20.6% of working-age women were already living in poverty at the outset of the recession, compared to 14% of men.

Thus, saying that “the recession hits men harder” is like saying, “The recession hit the rich harder than the poor, because the rich are the ones who had money to lose.” Even during the so-called “he-cession,” men still outnumber women in the workforce, and especially in managerial positions.

On average, women who do have jobs are paid 20% less than men with the same positions. The fact that women can be paid less for doing the same work actually increases male job losses, since cut-backs target higher-paid employees. Women are also more likely to be underemployed, working part-time jobs without health insurance.

There is no new thing called a “he-cession.” The severe economic downturn affects us all. If a quirky new buzzword is needed, maybe “we-cession” would be more appropriate.

Of Pets and People

2009-06-15T11:14:00.000-07:00

The blessings and curses of cohabitation

As a teenager, I found my first real job at Martin-Boyd Christian Home, a Church of Christ retirement community in Chattanooga. The patience, compassion, and work ethic I learned there have had a lasting impact on my life. Imagine my excitement when my own daughter, a 2009 high school graduate, asked me to drive her to Martin-Boyd for a summer job interview.

I was excited to see the changes made over the years. Martin-Boyd has always been an establishment that honors its elderly residents, but now the architecture was updated with beautiful crown molding and individual door frames that give residents a greater sense of dignity and autonomy.

In the center of the elegant sitting room, lively birds flitted about a large glass enclosure, lending their bright colors to the atmosphere. The fattest cat I have ever seen perched on a richly upholstered chair. A sleek tabby weaved his way across the room, turning to rub against the leg of someone’s walker and then pausing for a head scratch.

The familiarity and obvious pleasure the residents feel toward these animals supports what elder care professionals have known for some time: Pets are therapeutic. In fact, when an aging person can no longer live at home, one of the greatest losses may be the loss of their animals. Petting a cat or dog has been shown to lower blood pressure, ease depression, and put a smile on one’s face.

Keeping pets should be source of enjoyment, enhancing the life of both the humans and the animals involved. In our society, we see many examples of harm caused by greed, arrogance, and even mental illness.

From time to time, the news carries a story of a house overrun by pets. Typically we hear about an older woman housing hundreds of cats in a home filled with feces and even a few rotting corpses. Authorities swoop down on the unfortunate woman, charging her with animal cruelty and removing the numerous animals to treat them as victims. But who is really the victim here? Seems to me the cats are in charge, treating their poor “owner” as a slave while they procreate madly. As the old joke goes, dogs have owners but cats have staff.

Then there are the pit bull owners, who may be crazier than the cat ladies. Every time a child is mauled by a savage dog, pit bull apologists rush in to blame the child. Last Friday an eight-year-old Lookout Mountain girl was rushed to the hospital with life-threatening injuries after a pit bull attack. The apologists noted that the attack happened in the pit bull’s own yard while he was “defending his territory” from the girl’s small terrier. Although the dog owner had no proof of rabies inoculation, the apologists began their mantra of “Where were this girl’s parents?”

Eight-year-old children are often allowed to walk down the streets of their own neighborhood – particularly when a pet is missing. Chaining a pit bull in the yard is an unsafe practice, just as it would be unsafe to chain a bear or a lion in the yard and then expect children to just stay away. It was a relief to hear that the dog owner called 911 and then shot the animal in the head, unlike other cases where pit bulls have been spirited away from the scene of the crime. In one case, the dog owners hid the offending animal and presented authorities with a similar-looking dog instead.

Pet owners have the responsibility to protect little neighbors from vicious dogs. Chains and ropes do not provide adequate protection, since a child may wander into the animal’s circle. A tall chain-link fence provides better protection. It’s all well and good to say “Children should stay on their own property,” but the reality is that children do not exercise adult judgment. This is why homeowners must put a fence around their swimming pool, rather than just saying “That kid that drowned shouldn’t have been on my property in the first place.”

Many people around the United States love dangerous breeds like pit bulls, and feel perfectly comfortable around them. Other people like to keep poisonous snakes for pets. Those of us who don’t share your affinity simply ask that you keep such pets to yourself. Do not bring them to the park where our little ones are playing. Do not parade them through the local street fair, forcing us to sweep our children away from a mouthful of fangs right at the level of their little faces. Do not leave a dangerous dog unattended on a rope in your yard, where an unsuspecting child may become their next chew toy. Do not assume that just because you consider Killer a loveable, harmless pup, he will ignore the instincts present in every cell of his body.

People and animals can live in harmony. All it takes is a bit of wisdom on the part of human beings.

#

Brand New Packaging!

2009-06-08T06:26:00.000-07:00

Southern Baptists attempt to save denomination by going incognito

The webpage of Louisburg Southern Baptist Church reads: “We are still SBC; we still believe in inerrancy; we still cherish our seminaries and mission bodies: We changed our name from Louisburg Southern Baptist Church to Eastside Church of the Cross.”

What happened in Louisburg, Kansas is not an anomaly, but a growing trend.

Wikipedia describes the trend this way: A recent trend (most common among megachurches and those embracing the "seeker movement") is to eliminate "Baptist" from the church name, as it is perceived to be a "barrier" to reaching persons who have negative views of Baptists, whether they be of a different church background or none. These churches typically include the word "Community" or other non-religious or denominational terms in their church name.

Why are the Southern Baptists suddenly reluctant to use their own name? Simply put, it’s a marketing decision. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been embroiled in controversy and declining in membership for the last decade. The longstanding doctrine of church autonomy and personal autonomy (known as soul competency) has been replaced with social and political messages of intolerance and top-down Catholic-style micromanagement.

Take, for example, the issue of women in the pastorate. While the SBC has always had issues with sexism, individual churches were historically allowed to call their own pastors. As a result, many SBC churches were led by women in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.

In the year 2000, SBC leadership pulled out all the stops to eliminate these women. Married missionaries were forced to sign a statement recognizing the husbands as the true missionaries while the wives were just their underlings; couples who refused lost their funding. The SBC also stripped female chaplains of endorsement – but only those who were ordained. Although the SBC banned female pastors nine years ago, at this late date the purge continues with attacks on First Baptist Church of Decatur, pastored by Julie Pennington-Russell. FBC Decatur has been warned that unless they fire their pastor, they will be ousted from the Georgia Baptist Convention.

As a response to this religious fascism by the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) began to grow. The CBF is not a convention like the SBC. Emphasizing the freedom of every church and every individual, the CBF commits not to exercise creedal or papal authority over the network of churches that fund and endorse the organization. Many local churches, including First Baptist Church of Ringgold and First Baptist Church of Chattanooga, split their funding between the two organizations, allowing individual church members to designate which one they prefer to support.

Other churches pulled out of the SBC entirely – including the First Baptist Church of Greenville, S.C., whose founder William B. Johnson was the first president of the SBC in 1845 and is considered the father of the denomination. Pastor Harvey Clemons explained the church’s break with the SBC this way: “After about 150 years of the Southern Baptist Convention having unity in diversity, it's become a fundamentalist organization, more concerned with creedalism and politics, and we're not. When they added the statement to the Baptist Faith and Message about submissive women, it was just one more in a long series of incidents.”

Attempts at reviving the denomination include renaming old churches and misnaming new churches. Locally, north Georgia has seen the emergence of a number of misnamed Baptist churches. The Church at Catoosa may be the largest local SBC church hiding behind a non-denominational name. Although the church readily admits SBC affiliation when asked, the word “Baptist” does not appear on the website.

The newest undercover Baptist church around here is Origin Church, which uses the slogans, “For people who don’t go” and “No perfect people allowed.” Through MySpace and FaceBook, Origin stealthily targets people who have no intention of setting foot inside a Baptist church. Origin meets in the Ringgold Depot, offers free Starbucks coffee and does not use the word Baptist. Affiliation is sketchy, noticeably absent from their literature but not from the pastorate. A quick phone call receives a “yes and no” answer. They have gone back to the original Baptist message (None of us is worthy, but God loves us anyway) even as they ditch the Baptist name.

Is it really revolutionary and forward-thinking to pretend to be someone you’re not? Or, to put it more accurately, is it okay to pretend not to be someone you are? To the church-hunter who has already disavowed the Baptist denomination, it may seem like a bait-and-switch.

What’s wrong with being a Southern Baptist church? As a Nazarene, I could write a bullet list of points on which I strongly disagree with the SBC. Nevertheless, I think Southern Baptists should be proud to be Southern Baptists. If you cannot be proud of your faith, either disavow it or reform it. Don’t pretend to be above it, burying the truth somewhere down in your fine print.

The Bible tells us that by faith, our father Abraham was able to “call the things that were not as though they were.” It never says to call the things that were, as if they weren’t.

What I love best about Baptists is their humility. As a writer with a deep interest in religion and a healthy dose of skepticism, I have criticized many organizations and denominations in print. The Catholics ignore me; apparently I have not made the Pope’s radar. The Mormons threaten my business. The racists threaten my person. The Baptists inevitably respond with, “Wow, you are so right” and “I’m going to preach about this Sunday.”

This humility is what makes Baptists unique in the land. Their religious language for it is “the total depravity of man.” They read the same Bible I read, but their emphasis is a little different. They focus on the distance between God and humans – our complete inability to ever get it right. We can never reach God in the heavens; yet God reached down to us, becoming one of us and dying a sinner’s death.

The Baptist message is beautiful and important. I ask my Baptist friends not to lose sight of who you are, and why we need you. Give up the political agendas that don’t further your mission, but don’t give up your name. Grow out of the antiquated ideas about who is fit for ministry (because your writings teach that no one is fit, save through Christ), but don’t forget your heritage.

If you don’t like how the Baptist denomination is perceived, change the organization instead of the name. Be more inclusive. Get back to your roots and remember that no one is worthy of Christ – not even white, middle class, red-blooded, English-speaking American males who cut their teeth on the church pew. Reclaim the message and the mission that God set before you. Then you can be proud to put the Baptist name back on the signs.

Homeschoolers play in the dirt

2009-04-21T08:24:00.000-07:00

Addressing the school social worker’s rant

This weekend my grandson came over to the house to play. Almost two years old, little Isaiah has a firmly set mission in life: To find whatever trouble he can, and thoroughly get into it. In our yard, he made a bee-line for the leaky water hose.

“You see what he’s doing?” I asked my daughter.

Moriah shrugged. “It’s just water . . . and mud. He’ll come clean.”

Isaiah picked up the hose and leaned over for a better look, inadvertently squirting himself in the face. He looked up at us, streams of water pouring from his fine blond hair. We were smiling, so he smiled back. He stared at the stream for a moment, and then started lapping at it like a puppy. We laughed while he drenched himself, eventually muddy up to his knees.

According to Catoosa County school social worker Sue Mason, we laughed because we are homeschoolers. We don’t know that children are not supposed to play in the dirt. In her scathing two-part article “My thoughts on homeschooling” and “Homeschooling: the dark side,” Mason presents an alternate reality in which parents homeschool their children just to sleep late and avoid responsibility while their children play in the dirt. I suppose she has never seen all those children on the school playground at recess, playing in the dirt.

I was reluctant to leave the county paper lying around, with columns like these. My teens were really miffed to discover that other homeschooled kids are allowed to sleep late and play in the dirt all day. They had some hard questions about why I made them come to history class at 7:00 a.m. for so many years.

Mason attempts to deflect any objections to her column with the caveat that there are some good homeschool families, and she is not talking about them. Yet, for the length of two articles she goes on about homeschool families who live in trailers, are unemployed, and allow their children to play in the dirt all day long.

In seventeen years of homeschooling, I have never met the homeschool families Mason describes. In fact, Mason’s first homeschool column does not feature a single homeschool family. Instead, she writes about public school parents who cannot make it to school on time, who pay the cable bill but neglect the power bill, and who buy tattoos instead of shoes. If these accusations are drawn from actual cases in our county, Mason should be under fire for printing them in the county paper rather than adhering to confidentiality. If they are not actual scenarios, then they are just lies.

If the stories are true, they are stories of public school parents. When these parents are threatened with court action for their children’s tardies, they remind the county social worker that public education is not mandatory; they can always homeschool their children if they so choose. Mason thinks it is terrible that parents have this freedom and “there is nothing I can do.”

Is it really a bad thing that parents have a way to push back? They are our children, after all. The public school system sometimes behaves like a bureaucratic bully, running over individuals. I have a daughter in public school this year. She's a straight-A high school student working a year ahead of others her age. I still have to stand up for her to get her needs met. I am nice about it, but it goes without saying that if the school system does not offer this brilliant student the opportunities she deserves, they will lose her back to homeschooling.

Homeschooling is not a privilege. Rather, the public school is the one enjoying the privilege of having my talented daughter among their students. Granted, it is not too much to ask that she be to school on time! And she is. But the principle is the same: Families who do not get what they need and want from the public school system have the right to use private or homeschooling instead.

If a particular family needs a different schedule than the public school offers, homeschooling is one way to do that. So long as the child is learning, why should it matter whether classes are held during the morning, afternoon or evening? Learning is organic, and is not really confined to hours or classrooms.What we sometimes forget in this whole discussion is that homeschooling isn't some novel idea. As in the breastfeeding/formula debate, homeschooling IS normal and has been practiced for thousands of years. Sending your kids off to school is the novel idea.

Even today, every parent on the planet homeschools for the first weeks, months or years of the child’s life. We teach our children to walk and talk, processes far more complex than anything learned in grades K-12, and no one suggests that ordinary parents are incapable of teaching their own children to do these things.

The school social worker does not like that public education is not mandatory. Education is mandatory, but not public education. Before homeschooling became popular again, parents did not know they had that option. Parents like the ones she describes (that is, poor) could not afford private education, so they were at the mercy of the public school system. Now, suddenly, parents who are pushed around are pushing back. They are saying, "No, you can't bully me, because the truth is my child doesn't have to be in your school in the first place." And on that score, they are correct.

#

Changeability

2009-03-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

How the curious and the undecided are changing the world

“Did you know that I’m magic?” three-year-old Shana Lee proudly asked her grandmother.

“Magic? What’s your magic power?”

The pixie grinned. “I can change my mind.”

The ability to change one’s mind really is a sort of magic. We are not mere animals, depending on our instincts and a little training to know when to bark, when to bite and when to roll over.

We have choices, and those choices remain to be considered daily. We choose once to take a job, but every day we choose to be there to fulfill it, or to move on to something different. We say “I do” and yet every day offers the opportunity to make good on that promise, to break the vow in secrecy, or to declare a relationship unsalvageable and walk away. We choose our path, but we are rarely locked in.

Human beings must be the only creatures on this planet that have the ability to reinvent themselves. A drug addict gets her head together, finishes her education and interviews for a job. A preacher drives downtown and picks up a male prostitute. An executive swaps his Armani suit for a pair of overalls and fulfills his boyhood dream of farming. A timid, graying couple buys a Harley – and all the black leather to go with it.

We choose who we will be every day. Often we surround ourselves with the resources to enforce those choices, including people who accept and affirm our lifestyle.

In the past, society and geography acted as restraints that guided people to particular paths and lifestyles based on gender or background. A poor boy in a harbor town almost invariably took to the sea. He had few other choices and he didn’t know what they were anyway.

There have always been some who rebelled against the system and left town or chose alternate paths, but for most people the expectations of society provided firm guideposts. Perhaps it was easier, even. There was less to consider.

People today face such a dizzying array of choices, it can be daunting rather than liberating. Ask a classroom of children what they want to be when they grow up, and you’ll hear the standard responses: doctor, lawyer, firefighter, rock star, president. They are still ignorant to the thousands of choices before them.

In the past, young people were encouraged to make early decisions about their lives, jumping on the “college prep” or “vocational” track by the ninth grade. College students all entered with a major. People seemed to know where they are going.

Today’s young people prefer keeping their options open. A popular college major these days is “undecided.” Even high schools have returned to the old idea of presenting a standardized education for all students, allowing the kids to make college decisions during their senior year rather than their freshman year.

Such changeability isn’t just for young people, either. This generation of adult workers, more than any other, remains mobile and independent. We could all list dozens of adults who have changed careers, sought higher education, or launched a business of their own.

We are a generation of risk-takers who like to keep all options open. Previous generations sought a life-time relationship with an employer, hoping to climb to the top of an organization. Today we tend to view our employers as stepping stones toward some other pinnacle. We don’t approach our careers as ladders to be climbed, so much as mountainsides, where reaching the surest foothold or the best scenery may involve climbing sideways rather than upward.

As we apply changeability thinking to other areas of our lives, we find that life is long, and good, and full of possibilities. We can change our stubborn habits, revisit our pasts, restructure our relationships, shore up our personal weaknesses, and pursue our dreams. We can change our lives, and in so doing, we can change the world.

#

Kids Today

2009-03-15T13:47:00.000-07:00

Is there hope for the next generation?

Whether we are parents, teachers, or just adults observing teenagers at the mall or the movie theater, it is easy to give in to the sentiment that “kids today” are a real mess, and therefore our society is headed for trouble. Major news carriers have nothing good to say about young people. Drugs are epidemic. The drop-out rate soars. Journalists warn us that young people today not only do not want to wait for marriage; they do not even wait for a date. Dating has supposedly been replaced with “hooking up.” Girls have gone wild. Boys are all drunk or on drugs, or both.

Are we headed for a societal meltdown at the hands of the next generation? I think not.

Sure, I have seen the statistics on teen sex, drop-outs and drugs. I’ve also read about the Sixties and the Seventies, and I remember the Eighties and Nineties quite well. We may give practices a new name, but “hooking up” is not substantially different from “free love” or a “one-night stand.” About half of teens are sexually active, just like before. The drop-out rate is no better, no worse. The teen pregnancy made a small surge during Bush’s administration but has been steadily declining over all. The abortion rate has actually fallen. Teen smoking is at a ten-year low.

As in previous generations, only a portion of young people are engaged in the practices that scare adults to death. CosmoGirl recently shocked the nation by claiming that 1 out of 5 teenagers photograph themselves naked. Nobody mentioned the flipside also revealed by the survey: 4 out of 5 teens refrain from the practice, despite having the means and encountering the same pressure from friends, magazines and billboards. By focusing on the outrageous and the sensational, media outlets create panic. Apparently, that’s what sells papers and keeps viewers watching.

The younger generation is obsessed with computers, cell phones and iPods. It’s true. I finally realized that if I wanted to have a meaningful relationship with my adult daughter, I must add a texting plan to my phone. Calls are neither answered nor returned in this age of instant-everything and thumb typing. Young people are more computer-literate than ever, but we tend to focus on the negative aspects of this. We mutter about English literacy when we read, “How R U?” and fail to recognize that our kids are learning a shorthand that is just as valid as that used by Ham radio operators and telegraphers of old. We’re befuddled when kids get around parental controls, and forget to appreciate their intelligence and ingenuity.

Parents are not the only ones who focus on the negative. Media outlets routinely play up teenage delinquency, even as they ignore millions of American teens who are smart, strong, responsible and ambitious. When have you ever watched a TV special about the millions of teens who use the Internet responsibly to further their education, keep in touch with friends and learn about their world, without putting themselves in harm’s way? Yet it happens every single day.

Condemning next generation is as old as time. Even during the Pax Romana there was great concern about a rising crop of lazy youth who did not understand the value of work or the importance of politics. Maybe it’s a sort of amnesia on the part of adults. We forget what it was like to be young. We remember our hard work to bring up a grade, but not all the homework we missed that put us in that position to begin with. Did we really understand hard work, appreciate money, or have a strong grasp of the reality of consequences of sixteen?

In many ways, this generation is just like any other. There will be slackers who stay home with mom and dad, criminals, and those who feel entitled. There will be leaders and lovers, givers and takers.

If we are honest about our own generation, we have more slackers, drug addicts, welfare bums, and criminals among the adult population than among the teens in our community. Society progresses forward at the behest of a great team of hardworking but ordinary folks, while a few bright leaders show the way. This is how it has always been, and this is how it always will be.
Teenagers I know give me many reasons to hope for a better tomorrow. They write novels, put on plays, sew their own costumes, revive old styles of music, and read Goethe’s Faust just for fun. They jump hurdles, volunteer with disabled children, assist political campaigns, compose music and win scholarships. Many of them are one or two years ahead in their studies.

Amazing teens are all around us, even if their stories don’t make front page. In 2007, a teenage girl became the first female Georgia Fiddle King, putting old timers to shame with her rendition of “I Don’t Love Nobody.” I know a young man who plows with oxen. When his sister was a teenager, she started her own business canning and selling jellies. Just this week, a Ringgold High School student made a perfect 800 on the Math SAT. A few months ago, a middle school student revolutionized solar energy collection, defying generations of scientists who said it could not be done.

As a whole, teens are smarter now than we were back then. They learn more math and science in lower grades. They know more about international issues, and have a greater commitment to problems like global warming. They even know how to program the VCR.

Let’s face it; our children may be smarter than we are. They have a different starting point than we do. Older generations developed the Internet, but these kids were born in the age of Wi-Fi. They cannot imagine a world without those connections, and they will build on them, taking technology farther than we ever dreamed. Their thinking is not tangled in landlines and cable wires. Their world is not linear. While we have reached the edges of our imagination, they have only just begun.

What will the world be like when these young people gain control? It will be global, connected, instant, and intolerant of intolerance. Tomorrow’s entrepreneurs will focus on removing barriers, growing community, and sharing resources. They will create platforms rather than hierarchies.

Tomorrow’s leaders will tackle the problems they inherited from us, including a damaged economy, a ravaged ecology, and a world at war. All those hours spent online and on the cell phone may translate to diplomacy rather than deployment. Unfettered by prejudices, they inhabit a word both larger and smaller than ours. They will succeed where we failed – and they will fail where we succeeded – and all in all, the world will keep spinning.

#

100 years of celebrating women

2009-03-09T08:13:00.000-07:00

Happy International Women's Day!

Determined, feisty suffragettes celebrated the first National Women’s Day one hundred years ago, on February 28, 1909. Within a few years, the observance went global and became International Women’s Day, celebrated around the world on March 8th of every year.

In a host of countries around the world, International Women’s Day is now an official holiday with flowers and small gifts. The United States designates the entire month of March as Women’s History Month. This year, the theme for International Women’s day is “Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.”

The subject has never been more apropos. According to the National Institute of Justice, one in four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 1.3 million women per year are victims of sexual assault here in the United States, with an annual cost exceeding $5.8 billion per year.

Intimate partner violence recently exploded into the national focus when R&B crooner Chris Brown was arrested for beating, threatening, and choking pop star Rihanna nearly to death. Chat groups and news forums continue to crackle with the usual tired arguments: Why didn’t she leave him before this? Why is she silent now? Do some women want to be abused?

It is an easy thing to state that battered women should leave their partners. Of course they should, if and when they can do so safely. Yet when we focus on the actions or inactions of the victims, we overlook the most important aspect of these cases. Men should not hit women. The epidemic of domestic violence will never be resolved until we stop asking why women are there, and instead begin to ask why some men brutalize those they profess to love.

We are frustrated that Rihanna has not spoken out to repudiate Chris Brown and by extension condemn dating violence. Perhaps we forget that she is only twenty years old, did not ask to be in this situation, and never stated a desire to become the new face of domestic violence. As badly as we may want her to condemn Chris Brown and testify against him, the girl is probably scared to death. A few days ago, this man bit her, punched her, and choked her to the point of passing out. Now he walks around as a free man, simply because he has money. Who can blame his victim for lying low and playing nice?

Unfortunately, the maximum penalty for announcing your intent to kill a woman and then choking her unconscious appears to be four years. And who wants to place bets on whether a wealthy celebrity will receive the maximum sentence? Judging from the OJ fiasco, America will be lucky if Chris Brown is even found guilty.
So many people are calling Rihanna stupid for being with the wrong man. How stupid then is our society to allow over a million women a year to be thus treated, with only a slap on the wrist for those men found guilty of crimes against their own wives and lovers? Here in developed, “civilized” America, women are beaten into submission every day. Over a million women live in fear. Over a million women curb their actions, their words and even their thoughts to avoid retaliation.

We say “They should leave!” and yet society does almost nothing to assist women in leaving safely. 75% of intimate partner murders take place during or after the breakup. Most battered women do leave their abusive partners, but in doing so they encounter enormous risks as well as facing poverty and homelessness and risking the loss of their children.

That doesn’t mean battered women should stay. It means society should assist women in leaving safely. One avenue of assuring women’s safety is to lock up abusers until their obsession has passed. Courts regularly issue restraining orders instead, proving themselves far more “stupid” than the women we love to blame. If a man is willing to ignore a universal taboo against hitting women, will he not also ignore a little piece of paper telling him to stay away? Telling an abuser to stay away from his victim is as effective as telling a wolf to stay away from sheep. She is his prey. He will not stop of his own accord. Neither will he stop simply because she breaks up with him. If we want abusive men to stop attacking women, then we as a society must forcibly stop them. That’s what jails are for.

Those who say Rihanna will die if she goes back to Chris Brown have an excellent point. But she may also die if she breaks up with him, thanks to the low value America puts on the safety of women. For this reason, we have no right to judge Rihanna. While the whole world watches, she is on her own to work this out.

Meanwhile, invisible to the paparazzi and gossip rags, women who are less famous and less wealthy than Rihanna suffer in silence.

Why I'm still here

2009-02-15T10:13:00.000-08:00

And why I’m not alone

I finally took the social networking plunge. I depend daily on Internet searches and email, and obtain most of my news about the world online. Like many people, I haven’t opened a paper phone book in years. I order videos from NetFlix, and watch my favorite TV shows online. And I blog. Of course I blog. Still, I’ve long been hesitant to throw my social fortunes to the winds of MySpace and FaceBook.

In connecting with old friends from high school, the first topic that comes up is often geography. Many of my schoolmates – especially those who showed great promise – have moved to Atlanta or some far-off metropolis to pursue a successful career. Economists and sociologists tell us to expect as much. Bedroom communities like Ringgold, Georgia, simply do not retain most of the talented young people who graduate from their schools. They go off to college and discover they have outgrown their own community. The place they called home does not offer employment opportunities that stimulate their interests and allow them to access (and afford) the lifestyle they became accustomed to at the university.

What is it, then, that holds some of us here when it would seem a relief to pack it up and move away? Some, perhaps, lack motivation. Most of us are just sentimental.

It is that curve in Chickamauga Creek that holds me, like a mother restraining a baby in the crook of her arm. I drive past it more often than not, failing to leave the comfort of my vehicle and my shoes and my dignity. I pledge to stop more often and stand on those wide, flat stones while the ice-cold water runs over the tops of my bare feet – all the while praying the moss doesn’t glide beneath my soles like a banana peel and send me flying backward to land in a splash of green water and lost dignity.

The train, too, holds me here rather than moving me on. I love to hear it thunder past the Depot on an opry night, the great wooden shutter doors trembling in their ancient track. Sometimes the musicians join the rhythm; other times they stop and listen to a mournful solo as the horn blows and the beast moves by. I place my hand flat against the stone walls and feel the pulse of that locomotive roaring northward only a few feet from my fingertips, moving us without taking us away.

I love the old things, like that hodge-podge of tin and wood over by Callaway’s store. I have been looking at that structure my whole life, and it occupies the frame of my existence. Business may take me to the shiny, neoclassic city hall, but my eye is always on that crazy quilt of tin sheets. I’m remembering a hundred indistinguishable Saturdays when my father backed up to their pickup-height loading dock, and familiar men with friendly faces tossed sweet corn into the back of our old Dodge while I went inside to ask a question about my horse or my lamb or my dog.

Yes, it’s really the people who keep me here. I do not want to live in a place where there is no one like Moses in the grocery store. He grins, golden tooth gleaming, and you know right away that a flame burns so brightly in his soul that it could never be snuffed out by bad weather or a squeaky grocery cart wheel. He sings his way through life, blessing everyone who comes near him with what he enthusiastically calls his “black magic.” Just watch sometime and see the shoppers walking into the grocery store tired, cranky and worried about what to make for dinner – then coming out with a lighter step despite the heavy sacks in their hands. Moses is not a bag boy or a grocery worker; he’s the town healer.

My family, too, is here. If I moved away, they would cook me sumptuous dinners on those holidays I breezed in from some far-away metropolis. But who would pick up popsicles and ginger ale when I am sick? Who would teach my son the patient care of tending tomatoes and rounding up cows? What would it mean to him, growing up without the pungent Georgia clay inside the grooves of his soccer cleats?

I suppose we could live someplace exciting. My five-year-old always prays “I wish we lived on the beach and never got sick.” Yet if we did, she would not know the way that wide green creek meanders lazily past our yard, and then ruffles into a hundred giggles before it disappears past the island. I could show her a picture, but somehow it just wouldn’t be the same.

#

Obama inauguration offers living history lesson

2009-01-26T09:18:00.000-08:00

Many Georgia educators let the opportunity slide

On a Sunday afternoon, I watched via Internet as Barack Obama roared toward Washington, D.C. to the take the oath of office. Styling himself as a modern Abraham Lincoln, our new president retraced the pre-inauguration train journey traveled in 1861. At every stop, huge crowds braved sub-zero temperatures to catch a glimpse of the new leader of the free world, or to shout “Yes, We Can!” as the train rolls by.

As I watched that train roll toward the capitol, I thought of my friend Martha Archie. At birth she was named Martha Moss, and she grew up here in Ringgold, where her family is well-known and well-respected in the community. She graduated in 1964, the same year as both my parents. Yet even in this small town, my parents never met Martha Moss when they were teens. As an African-American, Martha Moss could not attend Ringgold High School.

Wilson High School was the school designated for students with darker skin. Situated down the hill from Ringgold High School (now the Middle School), Wilson offered education that was supposed to be “separate but equal.”

We were decorating a float for the Christmas parade the first time I heard of Wilson High School. Martha pointed out where Wilson High was housed, in what is now the ROTC building. Standing in the frigid wind with balloons in both hands, I cast my gaze from one school toward the other, and tried to imagine how two worlds could be so close and yet so segregated.

I should have realized there would have been two schools in my hometown, just as there were all across the South. I knew my parents lived through segregation and desegregation. My mother had told me about the separate drinking fountains in public places. As a child too young to understand, my mother had begged to drink from the fountain labeled “COLORED.” She thought the water would be tinted all the colors of the rainbow.

It is easier to imagine those things happened in Chattanooga, or down in Atlanta, or somewhere off in Alabama or Mississippi. We tend to downplay the history of racial tensions in our own hometowns. Certainly we would rather focus on the positive, like the gymnasium at Ringgold High School which is named after a black athlete. Neither do we like to remember that the KKK marched these streets not so long ago, and that black families in Ringgold were threatened in the 1960’s and even subjected to domestic terrorism that killed a mother in her bed.

We thirty-somethings do not go back that far. It’s difficult for us to comprehend how bad things really were. Today students of every skin tone mingle in the school yards. We have a city council that cares about all citizens, enough to remove a symbol that offends the black community. Then we see Barack Obama waving from the train car, and placing his hand on Lincoln’s inaugural Bible.

“Young people don’t understand how significant this is,” Martha told me the night of the parade. “They don’t remember what it was like, when you couldn’t even walk into a place and eat dinner.”

One reason young people don’t remember is because we, as a society, do not teach them. During all my years in Ringgold High School, no one ever spoke of Wilson High School. It was as if the black school had never existed, never left any imprint on this community, and did not even deserve acknowledgement.

No wonder American education lacks relevancy. We focus on the distant past that can be sanitized and analyzed, while ignoring the messy situations and overlapping voices that form real human history.

Students learn about Columbus every single year, but rarely are they taught about Clinton or Bush. Other powerful political figures like Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove, Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney hardly enter the classroom conversation, even though they have an enormous impact on our society and our world. Students learn how to calculate the height of a flag pole by measuring its shadow, but not how the World Trade Towers could have been protected from terrorism. They learn that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not just slavery, but they do not learn how to articulate both sides of the Iraq controversy.

Individual teachers cannot be blamed for a problem that is systematic. Georgia public education requires that every student in Georgia pass the same end-of-course tests. The advantage of the testing is that it standardizes Georgia education so that a diploma from one school is roughly equal to a diploma from another. The disadvantage is that it pressures teachers to neglect creativity and relevancy in favor of homogeny and “teaching to the test.” Standardization seeks to make all students the same, not better.

Students need to learn what is going on in the world right now. They need to read newspapers in the classroom. They need to have sources like National Geographic at their disposal –not just buried in the library, but open on their desks. NPR and CNN should be played in the classroom from time to time.

The inauguration of Barack Obama was a watershed moment in American history. Whether you love him or hate him, he has changed the face of American politics forever. In Washington, millions gathered to experience it.

Around the country, many homeschool parents seized the opportunity to teach their children about the political process all year long. They printed maps for their children to color as the state-by-state election results came in. They took their children on the campaign trail for one of the candidates. Not constrained by having to board a school bus at dawn, many homeschooled students stayed up to watch the election results rolling in at midnight. On January 20th, most of those families turned on the TV to witness America once again transfer power without violence.

Likewise, in a few public and private school classrooms, resourceful teachers do make a point of teaching students about politics without indoctrinating them. On Tuesday, some of those teachers recognized the importance of the moment, and turned on the TV. Sadly, others did not. In fact, some Georgia schools were forced by parents to offer an alternative activity, because parents protested that the inauguration was not educational. Other schools just failed to see the significance of the event and did not plan accordingly.

Nothing else that happened on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, held more educational significance than the inauguration of a new American President. How could printed words in a textbook compare to watching history unfold before us? The speeches delivered at the inauguration contained compelling history lessons, even as they became part of that recorded history. Art, music, poetry, prose and architecture were on display. Most of the important political figures whose names are not being taught at these schools were standing in the audience with their families. The event presented a massive array of teaching opportunities on politics, history, culture, literature, science and math.

Of my six children, only one attends public school. She is the only one who was prevented from watching the inauguration. Next election, I will be keeping my children home so they can learn.

#

The Musician's Mother

2008-12-26T18:52:00.000-08:00

In the stage lights she comes alive, blinking and smiling as if emerging from a chrysalis. It is there I see her as she will be, confident and consummate, no longer the fifteen-year-old being lectured about her cell phone, or the sister arguing whose turn it is to wash dishes.

On the stage, she is in her element. Everything else is just an interlude between performances. She swims through the delicious tension, her eyes running over the assembled crowd. She speaks and her voice comes back to her through the amplifiers. She inhales, growing larger. She sings and the world smiles. She plays her fiddle and the bright lilting notes lift us in our seats.

At home in her room, in the basement, on the porch or on the roof, she fills hours and days with the same strokes, scratched out in maddening succession. I cup my hands around my mouth, leaning toward the stairs or out the window. “Slow it down! I can’t listen as fast you can play!”

There is silence for a moment and I picture her bow poised over the strings, tiny snowflakes of rosin sifting to the dark wood. Finally she shouts back, “I don’t know it slow!”

Later she tells me she does not know the notes at all. She says the music is in her fingers, not in her head.

I watch her now, gathering the heat of the stage lights and the chaotic energy of the small crowd. It courses through her body and flows out through two hands – the fingers of one moving subtly over the neck of the fiddle while the other hand lightly grasps the bow, wrist undulating as she saws the strings. The remnants of that energy escape through swaying hips and tapping foot.

I follow the notes – I know them better than my own heartbeat, although I could not squeeze two in a row from those alien strings. Perhaps they are my heartbeat. And when she is gone – don't think of it! -- the melody will play on in my head. It will be the music of my days, energizing my steps lest I falter. It will course through my veins, so that I grow with each breath and do not melt in the emptiness she has left behind.

Yes, she will move on to other adventures, other cultures, other loves. I will be someone she has to remember. We won't finish each other's sentences, or reach across the table for the same dish. She will be a voice on the phone, or a tiny string of text, enigmatic at times, as her life unfolds.

I try to picture her in the settings she has imagined aloud. I see her in an antiseptic room, blue eyes burning bright between cap and mask. I see her gloved hands aloft, bright with blood. Is this the child I have raised, fearlessly facing down death each day?

Or is this my child, in a dusty foreign land, surrounded by children with eyes as big as moons? I look at the hands that play the fiddle. I watch what tiny and precise movements create sound out of silence. The notes break across the crowd, and we are moved. Are these not hands that heal?

I imagine her in a chapel, slanted evening light illuminating a soft veil laid over her maple-colored curls. It occurs to me again that I cannot in good conscience say “Her father and I” if some preacher asks “Who gives this woman?” How can I give away what was never mine? If she were mine, I would hold her like a jewel burning cool in the palm of my hand. It might show you my jewel, but I would never turn over my fist, open my fingers and empty something so precious into your palm.

But she was never mine. I knew it the first time I held her, wriggling and bloody, against my body. This was not the child I had imagined growing in the womb, a part of me, an extension of myself. No. The little being who gazed up at me with curious sparkling eyes was a stranger here.

I know I am not alone. Every mother must feel that she has become the portal of angels. She kisses her baby's mottled head, and finds that the child does not smell of earth. A tinny cry makes music so soft, she cannot imagine how anyone could mind the sound of a baby crying in the night. She cannot fathom that this sweet infant will become the screaming, pounding little savage who dumps the fish bowl on the bed – again.

Yet the sweet-smelling infant and the brutal fish-killer are one being, moving through the world touching and tasting, gulping at the strange sweet air that is foreign but familiar, too. And somewhere nearby, a mother's watchful eyes drink in all those memories, the same way the child is drinking in the world.

When I was a child, I always wondered about the Virgin Mary. How could she wipe that perpetually dripping nose and clean that little bottom and still have faith that the boy on her lap was not an ordinary child or even a prophet, but actually God in human flesh? Then I became a mother, and I understood. It is no great feat for a woman to look at her child and feel something kin to worship.

Her dancing feet and peals of laughter proved what I knew. She was no mere mortal, no smartly packaged glob of cells and chromosomes. I called her Twinkle Toes. She danced in my arms. The music was always in her – or it was out there, perhaps, waiting like flowers to be gathered.

The long fingers that grasp the bow were once soft and dimpled. I close my eyes and see that little hand reaching back for me. A thousand times she ran ahead, always spotting some new adventure. But then the copper-colored locks bounced over her shoulder as she looked back.

“Hold me hand!” she sang, dark lashes fluttering over eyes as big as the sky. “Hold me hand!” I rushed forward to place my finger in her grasp, wondering where she would lead me.

#

Undoing Eight Years of Stupid

2008-12-17T18:33:00.000-08:00

Sometimes the worst brings out the best

On election night, hope was palpable. A sort of jittery excitement filled the air at the Catoosa Democratic Headquarters in Ringgold, Georgia. A year ago, the local party was lucky to have twenty people at a breakfast meeting. Now, giddy Obama supporters edged past each other in the crowded banquet hall, sharing smiles and ogling the vast array of t-shirts and buttons. “Your grandparents were right,” read one sticker, “Vote Democratic.”

For decades, this area has been Democratic. That’s the reason we are known for having some of the best public schools around. It’s the reason we have a fabulous library, and a learning center that not only rescues individual educations, but actually boosts the local economy by increasing wages so that it brings in more revenue than it costs taxpayers. Nationally, Democratic values have brought us the social security program that supports the elderly, a public education system that ensures every child in America has the right and responsibility to go to school, help for the mentally ill, assistance for the impoverished and health care for poor children.

Curiously, the Republican Party has managed over time to misconstrue the notion of family values. Somehow a number of Christian voters have been convinced that Christianity is about denying rights to people who don’t believe like we do. Jesus was never into that. Jesus came to heal the sick, bind up the broken hearted and preach good news to the poor.

As the hours passed and the soft drinks disappeared at the election party, it became apparent that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States. Our excitement was tempered by the memories of the 2000 election. It was not until the election was called with a wide margin that the true celebration began. White Democrats clapped and laughed and danced in the streets, vaguely wondering why the black Democrats had slipped away early. Then the sound of church bells pealed through the chilly air.

For days, the reality of what had taken place was still sinking in. “I can’t stop crying every time I think about it,” wrote my friend in New York, sounding so much like another friend in Hawaii and another in Canada. Suddenly a nation known for its racial divide had leaped from prejudice redneck status to multiculturalism, becoming an inspiration for reconciliation advocates in Europe and all over the world.

Not one to bask long in the glory of a moment, Barack Obama immediately got back to work. Less than one month from the election, he has already chosen most of his officials and cabinet members, including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker as top economic advisor. Obama’s choices have thus far proven to be centrists and have sometimes crossed party lines (case in point, keeping Robert Gates as Defense chief.)

The task that lies before the President-elect is not an easy one. If the election was hard-won, economic and foreign policy success will be more difficult still. Some have even suggested that the Republicans were relieved not to win this cycle. After all, who wants to shoulder responsibility for the mess that Bush has made? The ship of state is not easy to turn around. It may take a decade or more to recover from the economic devastation of the Bush economy and quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then again, maybe it is all easier than it sounds. It doesn’t take a genius to do better than Bush; Obama is probably overqualified. How does one undo eight years of stupid? A lazy but clean solution would be simply to make a list of every policy Bush in enacted, and reverse it. The Patriot Act is a good place to start.

The problems Obama is inheriting are no more daunting than those faced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We love and revere FDR because he took on leadership at a time when the nation was utterly devastated. Through creative strokes of genius, FDR not only salvaged the economy; he used the crisis as an opportunity to build infrastructure, spur innovation and strengthen American ideals.

George W. Bush’s legacy as the worst president in history presents an opportunity to the next president. If Barack Obama acts timidly and only tweaks the failed Bush policies, he can expect to be caught in the same quicksand that has brought us to this point. If Obama acts boldly, he can create a legacy as a leader who brought the United States out of depression and war, into a time of peace and prosperity. On the heels of “the worst president ever,” Obama can be the best president yet.

Today

2008-11-05T11:28:00.001-08:00

Last night, we held our breath. There was no more time for calling or canvassing. It was like that moment when astronauts slingshot around the moon. We were Houston, watching intently but unable to assist.

Today we breathe deeply, and the sky looks more blue than ever before. Today we can do anything.

Last night, we watched the electoral votes surging slowly and erratically upward, and we sat taller by the minute.

Today we wear our Obama buttons just for fun, like football fans gleefully displaying our loyalty to the winning team. Today we love everyone who shared this moment with us, even (or especially) Senator John McCain.

Last night, there were whoops of joy, clapping hands, tears, laughter, cheering, hopping, and dancing in the street.

Today we remind each other of the hard road ahead, as if suddenly we must temper hope with realism, when for so long we have tempered realism with hope. It is so easy now to slough off fear and cynicism. It is so easy to smile and think of the better future that lies ahead for our children, so we keep reminding each other not to leave behind the tools that will help us climb this mountain.

Last night, the church bells were ringing through the cold, still air.

Today, we are practicing the sound of it in our mouths: President Obama.

#

Jeannie's Endorsements

2008-11-05T11:24:00.000-08:00

I'm a bit late in posting this, as of course it was published before the election. Nonetheless I'll include it to not have a missing link in my archive.

Vote for progress
Jeannie’s endorsements for 2008

Melvin Edwards for Catoosa County Board of Education
Check out the questionnaire interview completed by Brent Williams and Melvin Edwards. Williams talked only about his love of numbers. By contrast, incumbent Melvin Edwards talked about his love of kids and his love for education. As Edwards put it, education has been his whole life. As a former student of Ringgold Middle School where Edwards was principal, I know that his words ring true. Back then I thought he was too strict with his shiny shoes and militaristic attitudes. Now I read in the news about bomb threats and sexual assaults in schools all over the country, and understand why Melvin Edwards ran such a tight ship. He loves the kids in this county and wants to make sure every single student receives a solid education.

Both candidates recognize that we have major budget issues as a result of Perdue’s 1.5 billion cut in state educational funds. Williams is focused on budget cuts and is threatening to outsource our school buses. Edwards is focused on educating the children in this county.

Ralph Noble for District 3 State Rep
The children of north Georgia desperately need an advocate in Atlanta to prevent further robbing of our educational system. That’s why I am endorsing Ralph Noble, who is a public school teacher and former president of the Georgia Educators Association. On his website, Noble states, “My top priority will be to fully fund education in Georgia.”

Noble’s platform also includes fighting for responsible middle class tax cuts and providing quality, affordable health care for children and the elderly. Noble believes that groceries should always be tax exempt and that hunting and fishing rights should be protected. These types of “common sense” approaches to government make Ralph Noble an excellent candidate for the Georgia House of Representatives.

Sadie Morgan for District 2 State Rep
In District 2, the best choice for the Georgia House of Representatives is Sadie Morgan. Sadie is not a career politician. Like many people in her district, she knows the day-to-day struggle of raising a family in a weakening economy. Sadie Morgan was talking about the coming foreclosure crisis during the last campaign, while her Republican opponent Martin Scott was so out of touch, he claimed the biggest problem facing District 2 was Islamic fascism. What a joke! The only fascists around here are the ones who wear white sheets.

Bruce Coker for Georgia Senate
Just as we need Sadie’s vision and Ralph’s common sense in the statehouse, we also need solid, real-people representation in the Georgia Senate. Bruce Coker is a long-time public servant who truly cares about the individuals in his district. While he may not possess the slick charm of incumbent Jeff Mullis, Coker also lacks the lobbyist ties and political entanglements.

Jeff Mullis has proven to be an expensive employee without results. Consider that citizens are paying Mullis $75,000 per year as head of the Northwest Georgia Joint Development Authority to bring business to the county, in addition to what he makes as state senator. Some citizens point out that this is “double dipping” and a conflict of interests. More telling, no jobs have been produced. Time has come to release Mullis from both his ineffective positions.

Jim Powell for Public Service Commissioner
Jim Powell will stop the systematic deregulation of the power industry, which has increased power prices by about 40%. Once again power producers will be required to practice least-cost planning so that our rates are kept low. Fuel source diversity and energy efficiency are two ways Powell will bring down those rates. As a former senior official with the U.S. Department of Energy, Powell has more than twenty years in federal energy policy and programs, making him easily the most experienced candidate for the job.

Jeff Scott for US Congress
The first time I heard Jeff Scott speaking about smaller government and personal responsibility, I scoffed, “I’m not sure that guy is really a Democrat.” Frankly, he sounded too much like Reagan. Since then I’ve decided that Dr. Scott is a super-moderate kind of guy who thinks about issues deeply without checking the party line. For example, the Democratic platform on health care is that it should be freely (or at least cheaply) available to everyone. Dr. Scott emphasizes teaching healthy living habits and prevention so that medical costs are decreased.

Incumbent Nathan Deal has been a bad deal for north Georgia. He has repeatedly voted right down Bush’s party line -- against education and health care and in favor of Big Oil, invasion of our privacy without warrant, and endless war. Most frightening is Deal’s collusion with neoconservatives who want to replace income taxes with a 26% sales tax that will destroy small businesses and unfairly burden the middle class.

What we need in Washington is a fresh, open-minded representative who will look out for ordinary people like me and you. I have every confidence that Dr. Jeff Scott is the man for the job. Last weekend I asked Dr. Scott why he was running for office. He replied, “to get the government ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ back to the people.”

Jim Martin for US Senate
As a state representative, Jim Martin helped found the PeachCare program that continues to provide affordable healthcare for thousands of Georgia children. Under two governors – one Democrat and one Republican – Jim Martin served as head of Georgia Department of Human Resources. Now Martin is running for the US Senate in order to help Americans recover from the failed policies of Bush and Cheney.

Incumbent Saxby Chambliss has been nothing but a Bush lapdog. Chambliss voted against bringing our troops home. He has repeatedly voted against health care for children and veterans. He even voted against requiring better gas mileage for new cars and against researching alternative fuels. He has voted down the line with the Bush agenda with only one exception: Chambliss supported farm subsidies, a wasteful corporate welfare program that benefits wealthy agricultural interests. Amazingly, Chambliss is even worse than Bush.

Barack Obama for President, Joe Biden for Vice President
The Obama/Biden ticket is truly an opportunity to turn around our economy, our foreign policy, and our future. The McCain camp talks about change even as they support every failed policy Bush has put forth. They say there have been “mistakes made,” yet never enumerate what those mistakes were or how they would fix them. In short, McCain hopes to be Bush’s third term. The only citizens who should vote for the McCain/Palin ticket are those people who are prospering in this economy and happy with the way Bush has lead this country. If you are not happy with Bush, you will not be happy with McCain.

Why do they stay?

2008-10-06T06:38:00.000-07:00

Middle class voters and battered women's syndrome

As an advocate for abused women, I’ve heard the question a thousand times. Rather than asking why some men abuse or why society does not punish such criminals, people will invariably ask, “If women don’t like being abused, why do they stay?”

There are a number of incorrect assumptions in that question. First, it assumes the responsibility for abuse lies not with the abuser, but with the victim. This is obviously not true.

Second, the question assumes that abused women stay. Statistically, they don’t. It may takes months or years for a woman to safely extricate herself from a violent partner, but most women are so resourceful that eventually they do escape.

I understand the rationale for the question. Lately I’ve been wondering the same thing about middle class Republican voters. Year after year, Republican officials fleece the middle class. They regale us with promises of spending cuts, only to demand more pork than all their predecessors. They claim to be socially conservative while engaging in gay restroom hookups and chasing after teenage boys. They start wars they cannot finish and spend money we do not have. Even as they use patriotic language and religion to entice more recruits for their wars, they cut funding for veterans programs and wounded soldiers.

Throughout eight years of Bush, it has been discouraging to think that our children’s children will still be paying for this war. If McCain wins the 2008 election, our children’s children will still be fighting this war!

It is the middle class that bears the burden. Proportionally, ours is the greatest tax burden. Do middle class Republican voters really believe corporate welfare and tax cuts for rich people will “trickle down” to the average Joe? If it were true, Joe should be rich by now. Instead, Americans are poorer in real dollars than we have been in several decades.

The health care crisis also hits the middle class the hardest. The poorest citizens are still eligible for Medicaid, while programs like PeachCare that help the middle class are gutted and insurance companies are deregulated so they can invent more exceptions that fall outside covered expenses. These days it is hard to know which is rising fastest: deductibles, premiums or the cost of medicine.

Georgia Republican officials are no better than those on the national level. While middle class Georgians struggle with widespread fuel shortages, Governor Perdue and Senator Mullis run off to Spain. While Georgia public schools are failing (some so badly they actually lost their accreditation) and Georgia test scores are falling, school superintendent Kathy Cox goes on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-grader?” to show off her knowledge. Middle class Georgians do not care how smart Kathy Cox is. We care what our own children are learning in the public schools we are funding with our tax dollars.

Like violent marriage partners, Republican politicians keep promising to change. Even though McCain and Palin support the Bush policies 100%, they somehow claim to be the party of change. Stealing Obama’s lines, they tell us to vote for them if we do not want “politics as usual.” Yet they cannot point out a single aspect where their policies will differ from the president who has the worst popularity rating ever.

Like other abusers, Republican politicians use religion and guilt to keep their victims in place. They set up “prayer groups,” non-profit organizations and TV preachers to proclaim that voting Democratic will imperil our souls. These are the same preachers who threaten women with the wrath of God if they divorce their abusers. When faced with a Democratic candidate who is a born-again Christian vs. a man who divorced his wife for his mistress, the abusers simply make up lies. Obama is a Muslim, they say. Since there is absolutely no evidence for this claim, they make him a closet Muslim, and an unpatriotic guy who befriends terrorists, to boot. None of this true, but lying is no big feat for an abuser trying to hold onto his prey.

Just like abusers everywhere, McCain and Palin claim to be mavericks to whom the rules do not apply. They condemn other politicians for pork barrel projects even though Alaska holds the record for per capita ear marks. They condemn lobbyists in politics, even though Sarah Palin was the first mayor to hire a lobbyist to bring pork barrel money to her little town of Wasilla. McCain continues to push for endless war in Iraq, even as American citizens and Iraqi officials call for an end to the occupation. They’re mavericks, all right.

Four more years of Bush-as-usual is not what voters want. In every state, middle class Americans are tired of war. Yet, for the presidential election, the Republican Party has selected the most crazed war hawk in American politics today. Why do they stay?

As with abused women, the question assumes too much. They don’t stay. They won’t stay. Sooner or later, middle class voters will be brave enough to leave the Republican Party behind.

Got melamine?

2008-09-25T16:56:00.000-07:00

Formula-fed infants are at risk both at home and abroad

As of this writing, approximately 53,000 Chinese babies have been treated for drinking toxic baby formula. The milk was tainted with melamine – the same chemical that killed over 300 American cats and dogs in the recent Chinese pet food scandal. This time, greedy corporations are killing children. So far, four child deaths have been attributed the formula, while tens of thousands of children are still suffering from painful kidney stones or partial renal failure.

A similar atrocity occurred in Japan in 1955, when arsenic-tainted milk powder poisoned over 12,000 newborns. Not until 1981 did the nation admit the extent of their baby milk atrocity: At least 600 deaths, over 6,000 people still suffering 26 years later, and 624 people afflicted by severe mental retardation, developmental difficulties, and paralysis caused by brain damage.

This is not the first baby milk massacre in China, either. In 2004, thirteen infants died from drinking counterfeit baby formula made from flour and water, and 170 others suffered serious malnutrition.

As in 2004, the current tragedy is no accident. Melamine (a substance used in plastic and fertilizer) was actually added to the baby formula as a way to increase corporate profits. Melamine mimics protein in some tests, so when the dairy farmers watered down the milk to cut costs, they added melamine to cover their tracks.

The investigation continues to unfold. So far Chinese authorities have detected melamine in 20% of the nation’s dairy milk. Twenty-two brands are affected. China initially claimed that the tainted milk was never exported beyond its borders. However, Chinese milk products have now been recalled from Bangladesh, Yemen, Gabon, Burundi and Myanmar.

Hong Kong regulators pulled Chinese milk, yogurt and ice cream off the market after finding that eight of thirty samples tested contained the poison. Hong Kong authorities found traces of melamine in two Nestle products – a follow-on formula for babies over a year old, and a type of milk used for catering. Nestle denies that their products are tainted, pointing out that Hong Kong recently made their melamine standards more stringent than U.S. and European standards.

The Chinese government is talking tough and taking action now, but the evidence indicates China knew about the poisoned milk weeks ago and chose not act until the end of the Olympics and Paralympics.

Chinese authorities will have no mercy on their designated scapegoat. After all, their government responded to the pet food scandal by executing the head of China’s food and drug safety agency. Perhaps in this case a fitting punishment would be a steady diet of Sanlu baby formula.

As China faces another hit to its national image, parents around the world wonder, “Could this happen here?”

The answer is a resounding yes. Here in the U.S., the FDA has issued a warning against all Chinese-produced baby formula. Although it is illegal to import baby formula from China, officials cite examples of Chinese brands being sold in ethnic stores.

All formula-fed infants are at risk for various types of contamination, both intentional and accidental. Formula-feeding is not like breastfeeding, in which the milk passes directly from source to destination without risk of contamination, and the breast milk itself even contains substances that kill off foreign organisms like Salmonella.

Instead, formula-fed babies are exposed to contamination risks throughout production, canning, distribution, and even at home as the artificial milk is poured into a plastic bottle containing BPA, a substance known to be hazardous to humans since the 1930’s. The bottle itself may also contain microorganisms, unless it has just been sterilized. Unfortunately, heat increases the release of BPA. Bottle-fed babies just cannot win.

The American formula industry issues product recalls every year. In May of this year, Abbott issued a recall because of product oxidation, which can cause nausea, vomiting and other gastrointestinal problems in infants. Past recalls have been issued by various U.S. formula manufacturers because of glass particles, unsanitary production conditions, Salmonella, incorrect mixing instructions, and other serious safety problems.

Intentional tampering has also occurred here in the United States. In 1995, the FDA seized 45,000 pounds of counterfeit infant formula. The milk trail led to ten factories in eight states that were making bogus formula with counterfeit labels. The fake formula was being sold in supermarkets under brand names.

More often, formula fraud occurs after manufacturing. Fraudulent wholesalers offer retail stores stolen, damaged or re-labeled formula. In one instance, a man and wife simply bought cases of cheap formula off the shelf, relabeled it as an expensive dairy-free formula, and then returned it to the store. The couple netted thousands of dollars before being caught. Several allergic babies were harmed by drinking substances they could not tolerate.

The FDA offers parents suggestions for avoiding counterfeit formula: Know how your baby’s formula looks, smells and tastes. It is interesting that they fail to recognize the simplest safeguard of all: Avoid baby formula.

In all but the rarest cases, babies are much better off drinking mother’s milk. Breast milk is full of nutrients that provide lifelong benefits to the child. Just as important are the substances you won’t find in breast milk -- melamine, arsenic, and Salmonella, to name a few.

Palin Pros and Cons

2008-09-15T16:47:00.000-07:00

Several readers have asked me to weigh in on the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s vice presidential running mate. The way I see it, there are pros and cons to the Palin pick.

PRO – She’s a woman. Over 50% of voters are women, and we are seriously underrepresented in American government.

CON – She’s against women. Palin is part of the most extremist anti-woman platform the Republicans have put forth in years. These Republicans are on the warpath, trying to limit access to ordinary contraceptive methods like the birth control pill, which the majority of American women depend on at some point in their lives. Palin is right in with this crowd, going on record to state that she is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

PRO – The restoration of a female to this election could appeal to some voters who are disillusioned over Hillary’s primary loss.

CON – Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Palin’s resume is so thin, it actually includes her high school basketball “career.” She is a one-term governor of the 4th smallest state by population, and before that she was the mayor of a town smaller than Fort Oglethorpe. Most Americans only heard of her last week. She is best known as the bee-hived governor who was almost Miss Alaska. She has no experience outside the state, much less with foreign affairs. According to the New York Times, Palin only got her passport in July, 2007. Even then, she did not visit Iraq as she has claimed.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton is a serious, seasoned political leader known all around the world. It’s not just the age difference. Since her twenties, Clinton has been featured in publications like Life Magazine. She attracted attention not for beauty pageants but for historic accomplishments, like being the first Wellesley student to deliver the commencement address and using that opportunity to criticize the senator who spoke just before she did.

While Republicans hail Palin as a reformer, it is Clinton who is a true crusader. Hillary was a force to be reckoned with even before she teamed up with Bill. In the late sixties, she fought for civil rights, and in the seventies she helped impeach Richard Nixon. In the eighties, while Palin was strutting down the runway in a bikini, Clinton was fighting for education reform in Arkansas and being named Mother of the Year for the second time.

As First Lady for two terms in the nineties, Clinton was so active in domestic and foreign affairs that critics printed bumper stickers reading “Impeach the President and her husband, too.”

Clinton’s greatest obstacle is being ahead of her time. Consider her bid to reform healthcare. As First Lady she was unable to make it happen, but that plan is now integral to the Democratic platform. That’s what reformers do; they change the way we think about the world. Simply challenging an incumbent in your own party doesn’t make you a reformer.

The differences go beyond education and experience; Palin opposes everything Hillary Clinton stands for – health care, education, individual freedoms, and economic security for the middle class.

McCain must think women are stupid. He hopes to win Clinton supporters simply by adding a woman to his ticket. Some men may believe that all females are interchangeable; women know better.

PRO – Palin is a Washington outsider. After 8 years of Republican corruption, lies, and unjust war, many Americans are looking outside the Capitol for a fresh leader without ties, allegiances and debts.

CON – She is not just an outsider; she has absolutely no national experience. Republicans try to brush this away by pointing out that Obama has never been a governor and therefore has no “executive” experience – but the same can be said for McCain. If Palin is more qualified than Obama, then she is also more qualified than McCain. The Republicans need to reverse their ticket! The truth is, Sarah Palin is the least experienced candidate put forth in recent history. The presidency is far too important to risk on a loose cannon like McCain and a complete unknown like Palin.

PRO – A short resume means less baggage . . . right?

CON – For a politician with such a short history, Palin has been remarkably quick to immerse herself in scandalous abuses of power. Currently she is under investigation for trying to force the firing of her ex-brother-in-law as a favor to her sister.

As governor of Alaska (population comparable to Atlanta or Memphis), she has held her hand out for plenty of pork. Palin claims she opposed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Not true. Support for the bridge was part of her campaign platform. She only gave up on it after Washington turned against the project. Then she canceled the bridge, but kept most of the money for other projects. Although she claims she opposes earmarks, she has requested more per capita than any other governor.

While requesting federal dollars to study the mating habits of crabs, Palin used her line-item veto power to slash important funding for education and teen pregnancy prevention. She opposes teaching teens about condoms in spite of statistical and now personal evidence that “abstinence only” education has poor results.

Palin has an interesting strategy on changing Alaska’s status as the rape capital of America: Discourage victims from reporting. Under Mayor Palin, Wasilla women who reported rape had to pay for the cost of the forensic exam, reportedly a charge of $300-1,200. Charging women who report sex crimes is a sure way to reduce rape – well, rape reports, anyway.

PRO – Palin is an avid outdoorswoman, giving her a tough, not-afraid-to-get-her-hands-dirty image.

CON – Sarah Palin’s hands are a little too dirty. Palin wants to turn the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge into a private oil field for her corporate buddies.

Hunting does not always translate into caring about the environment or its inhabitants. Palin scoffs at global warming even as scientists document the shrinking of the ice caps and drowning of polar bears. Not that Palin cares about polar bears; she actually sued the Bush administration to have them taken off the endangered species list.

Wolves have fared no better under her watch. Until the program was stopped by a state judge, Palin was offering wolf hunters $150 for every hacked-off front foreleg they brought in.

PRO – The selection of a female vice presidential candidate is a historical first for the Republican Party. Finally, the Republicans have entered the 20th century. That’s not a typo. The press seems to have forgotten that Democrats met that milestone last century when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. The Republicans are, finally, playing catch-up.

CON – In choosing Palin, John McCain passed over a long line of more qualified Republican leaders. If he wanted a female running mate, why not Kay Bailey Hutchison? Hutchison served as state treasurer of Texas before starting her fifteen years in the Senate. She is the most senior female Republican Senator, with a great deal of experience and responsibility.

Or how about Olympia Snowe? Snowe is the first woman who ever served in both houses, both in the state and nationally, and one of the first to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She was named one of America’s top senators by Time Magazine, and holds a 79% approval rating in her home state of Maine. Snowe is as powerful as she is popular. She chairs the subcommittee that oversees the Navy and Marine Corps and also serves on the Finance Committee. In 35 years, Olympia Snowe has never lost an election.

With choices like Hutchison and Snowe (and Condoleeza Rice, and the list goes on), why did McCain choose a political newbie from the sticks? The answer is clear to hard-working women in all sorts of careers who have watched a younger, less qualified woman soar past them to assume positions at the top. It’s an old gimmick, really: Put a token female near the top to placate the other women in the organization. Just make sure it’s a woman who will fully support the good ol’ boys, without caring what happens to us other women, or our children, or our world.

Memo to Bush Administration:

2008-08-25T05:29:00.000-07:00

Only pregnant women have abortions

An old pro-life slogan says, “If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant.” One could add, “If you're not pregnant, it can't be an abortion.” Medical and surgical abortions can only be performed on pregnant women.

Apparently that's not so obvious to President Bush and his minions. The Bushies have cooked up a diabolical new plan to rob women of safe and convenient birth control methods. Legislation would encounter too much resistance. Instead, the Bushies are acting through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, a Bush appointee, simply changed the official definition of the word “abortion.”

Abortion is normally defined as the ending of a pregnancy with no surviving fetus. The term includes spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion. The term applies even if the fetus dies weeks before the abortion, or if no embryo ever formed in the first place.

Here's the new Bush abortion definition, according to the draft HHS provided to Reuters: “The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

The last phrase in the above quote is particularly problematic. For those who missed out on sex education, a woman is not pregnant until implantation. Conception usually occurs in the fallopian tube, and it takes several days for the fertilized ovum to travel down the tube and implant in the uterus. Before implantation, her body receives no signals that conception has taken place. A pregnancy test will give a negative result. In fact, the only conceptions we know about prior to implantation are those that happen in a petri dish.

Notice that the word “pregnancy” appears nowhere in the above definition. If a woman is not pregnant, how can she have an abortion? In redefining abortion, the government redefines pregnancy itself. Pregnancy becomes the default condition for any woman who cannot prove she isn't. The new definition does fit the CDC's April 2006 proclamation that all women between menarche and menopause should be treated as “pre-pregnant,” just in case.

Worst of all, Michael Leavitt's rule change requires no Congressional approval. Like most Bush decisions, it is simply dumped on the American people with no due process and no recourse.
As Hillary Clinton explained in her typically understated manner, “This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception — including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs — 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.”

The birth control pill and its cousins (Depo-Prevara shot, patch, etc.) prevent ovulation. The IUD prevents ovulation and also kills or immobilizes sperm. Here's where the Leavitt argument comes into play: Theoretically, these methods have the potential to stop the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Of course, there is no evidence that this actually happens. Gathering such evidence would be virtually impossible.

No evidence? No problem. The Bush Administration has never let reality get in the way before. You remember those “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. They must be around here somewhere . . . along with all the potential children who were never ovulated, never conceived, never implanted, and never part of any woman's pregnancy.

Broadening the definition of abortion has potentially devastating effects when combined with any future legislation limiting abortion. Many Americans are against abortion, but how many of us really want to see birth control pills banned?

And when birth control pills become taboo, what about breastfeeding? Breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and could theoretically suppress implantation in the same way birth control pills might (or might not.)

As Leavitt pointed out when the memo leaked, he is not banning birth control pills. However, he is placing that power in the hands of pharmacists, health care workers and insurance companies. They get to decide what is moral and right for us women.

Clearly the GOP has more concern for some fundamentalist pharmacist's conscience than for millions of women who depend on reliable contraception. Never mind that birth control pills also treat various menstrual conditions, making life more bearable for so many. Never mind that the pills prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies. Never mind that they prevent true abortions on women who are, you know, actually pregnant.

The important thing is to help the poor, innocent, un-implanted children! Help them do what? Well, get implanted, of course.

Do not construe this goal to include helping the children experience healthy births, access to quality child care, adequate education, or some kind of medical care. In the GOP way of thinking, those problems are best solved by individuals. Somehow they believe that females are not intelligent enough to determine when to have children, yet are resourceful enough to raise dozens on our own.

Guess how Leavitt justifies classifying birth control as abortion? It is directed at rape victims. Several states have recently enacted laws stating that rape victims should be offered emergency contraception so they do not become pregnant. Leavitt claims that is just not fair to health care workers, because they may have political objections to filling those prescriptions. The new definition tramples dozens of state laws. According to Leavitt, health care companies should continue to receive federal funds even if they force rape victims to get pregnant.

Who is this Michael Leavitt anyway? He has achieved such an important health position in the President's cabinet that he now holds power over every womb in the nation. He must be a renowned physician!

Well, no. Before Leavitt went into politics, he ran one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the U.S. Now he is using his position to redefine abortion in a way that benefits insurance companies. Surprise, surprise. As with everything in the Bush Administration, this rule change is not about principles. It's just about money.

Joshua's Law

2008-08-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

Blessing or Burden?

My friend Deirdre grew up in New York City. She enjoyed walking to the store, the theater and the pharmacy. A combination of public transportation and taxi cabs were available to take her anywhere else she wanted to go. After 9/11, Deirdre moved her family to rural New York and discovered a need for something she'd never thought about much – a driver's license.

In the city, a person can live a full and vibrant life without ever getting behind the wheel of a car. In rural America, driving is a necessity. Without a driver's license, most young people will not obtain employment or have a way to attend post-secondary education. The need for a license is heightened for kids whose families are not well-off. In this area and in particularly during this economic crisis, there are teens who must work in order to have things they need. With a graduation rate around 75% and the US teen pregnancy rate rising, we also have a number of teens who need to drive to work to support themselves or their children. Yet these are exactly the kids who are impeded from obtaining a driver's license.

Georgia law prevents teenagers from driving unless they jump through all the right hoops. First, they must prove they are still in school. In the past, kids who needed to drop out of school to work full time were not denied a license. In fact, teens in extraordinary circumstances could request a “hardship license” before age 16. Now we tell them “no school, no license.” If a licensed driver drops out of high school or has unexcused absences, her license will be suspended within ten days. Every Georgia teen needs an education – but could we not do better by helping rather than penalizing kids in crisis?

In 2007, new restrictions were enacted under the name Joshua's Law. Joshua Brown's father lobbied for the law after his son died in a hydroplaning accident soon after his 16th birthday. Rather than blaming road conditions or lack of driving experience, his father decided that it must have happened because he was sixteen. They set up a foundation and pushed the Georgia legislature to pass a new law, stating that sixteen-year-olds cannot get a license without taking classes. Seventeen-year-olds can get a license without the class.

These Joshua's Law classes are often one-room operations where some person takes your kids along while running her errands, and otherwise has them sitting at a table reading a book or watching a video – a privilege for which you will pay approximately $400. A $90 online option exists, but does not fulfill all requirements.

As a matter of fact, the $400 classes are also incomplete, though they may tell you otherwise at the outset. Your teen driver still cannot get a license without an Alcohol and Drug Awareness (ADAP) card, which is available only through state-sponsored programs at distant locations or through the health class at public schools. Also required for aspiring 16-year-old drivers are a 366-day-old learner's permit, a school attendance form, and a parent with a license.

Joshua's Law impedes young drivers – especially the aforementioned teens in crisis. Teen parents and poor families often cannot afford $400 and a week of time spent at one of these places. If the state wants teen drivers to have this class, why not offer it through the state? In fact, Joshua's Law stipulates that a 5 percent levy on traffic violations (totaling $10 million per year) will make driver's education available to every Georgia teen. How is the course available to “every teen” when only a handful of private companies are approved to administer it and the cost is prohibitive for many families? Where is the levy money, and why is it not being used for the teens?

Another problem with Joshua's Law is that it targets the wrong offenders. People do not wreck because they are a certain age. They wreck because of carelessness, distraction, or plain old bad luck. Sometimes they wreck because they're not as experienced at dealing with other drivers' mistakes. Often they wreck because of drugs and alcohol. According to the Department of Transportation, nearly 30% of teen driver fatalities register a blood alcohol level at the time of death.

The Georgia legislature addresses the DUI problem with ridiculously lax solutions. DUI only becomes a felony on the 4th conviction. The felony law was only enacted last session. We need tougher penalties and better treatment programs for impaired drivers of all ages.

The solution to safer streets is not to put all the teenagers in the back seat. Oh, it is true that certain people are statistically more likely to wreck than others – teenagers among them. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teens, since teenagers rarely die from heart disease or cancer.

But does age discrimination weed out the most dangerous drivers? Not when you consider other factors, such as gender. Young men are twice as likely as young women to die in traffic fatalities. According to insurance companies, this discrepancy does not even out until sometime in the late twenties. Should we have different driving ages for the sexes? Or should marriage be a driving requirement for men, since single males are statistically the worst drivers?

The very idea of discriminating against males at the Department of Driver Services is appalling. But when we discriminate against female teens because of the bad driving of male teens, how is that any better?

Georgia should dump the age discrimination and apply equal treatment across the board. If driver's education is a wonderful thing for 16-year-olds, then let's require it for everyone seeking a license. Too many kids, daunted by Joshua's Law and its predecessors, simply wait until they are older and the requirements ease off. The result is a horde of 18-year-olds who drive just as badly as yesterday's 16-year-olds.

The M Word

2008-08-07T11:12:00.000-07:00

Modern racists use religious attack to smear blacks

“I haven't voted in over twenty years,” an acquaintance recently confided. “But I went and registered to vote in this election, just so I can vote against Obama.”

“Why is that?” I inquired.

“Because he's a Muslim!”

I was silent for a moment, and then I pointed out the obvious. Everyone knows that Obama belongs to the Church of Christ. If he were a Muslim, the conservative attempt to smear him with the unpatriotic words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright would have fallen flat. In fact the presidential candidate recently renounced his association with Wright's church because of some extremist views and language – extremist Christian views, mind you.

I explained the facts patiently the first time my associate brought up the Muslim argument, but this individual was not swayed by facts. Finally I asked, “When you say 'Muslim,' does that mean black?”

The answer was affirmative. Since that conversation, I've received numerous emails (some spam and some, unfortunately, forwarded from well-meaning friends) claiming that Obama must be defeated because we do not want a Muslim in the White House.

Apparently the n-word, which is too vulgar to voice in polite company, has been replaced with the M-word: Muslim. As a white Christian, I can only imagine how this accusation sounds in the ears of black Christians.

Frankly, the M-word attack on Obama implies that black Christians cannot really be trusted. Since black Muslims do exist, any professing Christian with dark skin might be a secret Muslim! Yet the very idea of a “secret Muslim” is an oxymoron. A person cannot be a secret Muslim anymore than he can be a secret Christian. Both religions require adherents to practice faith openly, not “hide it under a bushel.”

If any of my dear readers find themselves swayed by “Obama is a Muslim” arguments, I invite you to investigate the claims using that quintessential urban legend spotlight, http://www.snopes.com/.

In case you're wondering, Obama was sworn in on the Bible, not the Quran. He attends church, not Mosque. He never attended a Madrassa or Wahabi school in Jakarta, as some news sources even claimed. Investigative reporting by CNN revealed that Obama's early education consisted of public schooling, plus two years of Catholic school.

Obama is no Muslim, closet or otherwise. In fact, he is more open than most politicians about his faith, speaking often of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ sixteen years ago. He knelt at the altar on a Sunday morning. He stood and professed Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

But the M-word need not be accurate to deal its blow. In fact, it can be used as a sort of code word, the speaker and the hearer sharing a secret camaraderie. After all, not everyone is crass enough to don a t-shirt that says “Obama is my slave” or depicts him as Curious George. Likewise, the n-word is now considered too offensive for all but the most hateful bigots. Substituting the M-word for the n-word allows those racists who consider themselves civilized to engage in a bit of thinly disguised black-bashing while feigning innocence.

The tactic is not new. Racial prejudice has often been disguised as religious objection. Throughout history the targets of racism and genocide have been many – indigenous peoples, Jews, gypsies, etc. In nearly every case, racism is overlaid with religious complaint. Persecution is excused by the claim that the persecuted are heathens, pagans, savages, or cannibals.

Whether the Spanish wanted Mayan treasure or the USA wanted to own and occupy Hawai'i, the tactics were the same – they labeled the people heathens and suddenly it was acceptable to rape, pillage, steal and exterminate.

Hopefully Obama is in no danger of extermination, but the M-word could very well cost him the presidency. That will not hurt him too much. After all, he'll still be a senator, a wealthy author, and the first black American to secure a major party nomination. He has enough money, fame and connections to last a lifetime.

But what about the rest of us? Can we survive four more years of Bushism?

Better late than never

2008-07-11T05:00:00.001-07:00

Better late than never:
Impeach Bush and Cheney

Finally, Democrats are moving to impeach the administration of criminals now controlling the Oval Office. For nearly eight years, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have lied to the American people. They have launched a war that is unconstitutional and unjustified. They have imprisoned thousands of people – some of them women and children – without due process, and then proceeded to torture them. They have spied on American households. They have laughed while they trashed the concepts of due process, habeas corpus, privacy, the Geneva Convention, and basic decency. No one has held them accountable for this tyrannical behavior – until now.

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she became one of the most powerful women in the world. Pelosi has long been critical of the current administration’s “war on terror” and the propaganda that surrounds it. Yet, before she even ascended to her current position, she made it clear that impeaching Bush was not on her agenda. Thus for two years, Democrats have held a majority in Congress and yet have not moved to impeach.

Why did Pelosi think America put Democrats in office? To pat Bush’s back and wink at his crimes?

We can understand the reluctance to impeach. Democrats became quite allergic to the whole process after President Clinton was dragged through impeachment over what should have remained a private affair (pun intended.) Millions of dollars were wasted proving that the man had, indeed, cheated on his wife. Conservatives and progressives alike took umbrage at the President’s dalliance with a White House intern – but few Americans considered his personal failure a crime against the country.

Less than a decade later, Republicans are no longer bothered by adultery. Senator John McCain not only cheated on his wife Carol; when Carol became disabled, he ditched her for a younger model, marrying the blond 25-year-old Cindy within one month of his divorce. Aren’t Republicans, who claim to be the standard-bearers of moral behavior, appalled at McCain’s sexual behavior? On the contrary – they want to make him President of the United States! Adultery is now passé for Republican politicians.

President Clinton was found innocent of the charges leveled against him, yet his impeachment affects Democratic thinking today. Some Democratic leaders apparently forgot that our forefathers established impeachment as an avenue toward justice. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan act of character assassination, as it was in Clinton’s case. But when a president has used the office to thwart the Constitution and commit war crimes, then impeachment is not only justified; it is absolutely necessary.

Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for having the courage to stand up for justice. At this late stage in Bush’s second term, some are tempted to just let things ride. Some would even say it is “too late” for impeachment.

In a democratic republic, it is never too late to hold our leaders accountable for senseless killing. It is never too late to hold an elected official accountable for propagating 935 documented lies in order to invade another nation. It is never too late to proclaim that America is about freedom, not imperialism. It is never too late for justice.

Read the actual articles of impeachment here.

Obscure parenting tips

2008-06-08T08:22:00.001-07:00

For the creative and the desperate

As the parents of six children, Derek and I are always in the market for creative parenting ideas. Today I will share a few things we have learned along the way.

If you have a metal door, you have a great spot to use one of the many Upwards or honor student magnets cluttering up the clutter drawer. (Or use your “My child beat up your honor student” magnet, if that’s all you have). Stick it on the door as a holder for whatever you need on the way out next morning – an SAT admission ticket, that field trip permission slip that was due yesterday, or even a note to buy toilet paper.

Circle spider bites with a permanent marker. That way you can tell whether they are growing or shrinking. (Hat tip to Pastor Mendy McNulty for this one.)

Don’t ask a child to explain why he did something, unless you honestly do not know. A person cannot indict himself, so asking this question only encourages him to assign himself new motivations after the fact. Parents call this “making excuses,” but to a child it is a matter of protecting his self-esteem.

When children ask “Why?” always tell them why. Make the explanation thorough. Serious inquiries deserve a thorough answer. Children with other motives for asking “Why?” get bored with the lengthy response and often give up the mantra.

For teens and pre-teens, I prefer to blame unpopular parenting decisions on John Tesh. My children may be unique in their fascination with Tesh’s “Intelligence for Your Life” radio program, but I find they are reluctant to argue with the man. It works like this: “Look, sweetie, I know that you personally would never text-message under the covers after bedtime. But John Tesh says everybody sleeps better if the cell phones charge on the kitchen counter every night – no exceptions.” This works for most parent-teen conflicts, and you need not listen to all the shows to use it. If it makes sense, John Tesh probably did say it, some time or other.

Traveling with young children is filled with surprises, and not always the happy kind. Since leaving behind the diaper bag a few times, we’ve learned to keep a family emergency kit in every car. Hopefully you already have jumper cables, a jack, and other tools, but this kit is for the people in the car. It should contain everything you would need if for some reason your family were trapped in the car. Ours includes wet wipes, diapers, clean socks, toilet paper, bandages, bottled water, crayons, coloring books and individually wrapped crackers.

The best road trip entertainment we have found is a classic Carpenter’s CD. The mellow tunes calm nerves and make life more pleasant. My five-year-old is especially fond of “Sing a Song,” which she calls “La la la la.” She will often request it. When she is grumpy, she asks us not to play it. “I’m not going to start singing,” she says, crossing her arms, “You can’t make me la la la la.” We shrug and promise that no one will make her sing. And then we hear Christianna’s thin little voice join in, and we all smile.

When all else fails, moo. It was only a hunch, or perhaps an instinct. One day as we were trying to get home, a certain irate toddler was screaming bloody murder because she did not care to sit in the car seat. I had tried all the normal distractions – talking, singing, stopping the car to take her for a walk, bribery, threats, cutting her out of the will, etc. At last, in desperation, I uttered a low-pitched moo. My teenage driver shot me a sideways glance and then wisely joined the mooing. Soon the entire car was filled with the sounds of calm, happy cattle. Finally the toddler stopped her high-pitched screams to utter “Mooooooo.”

The most important advice I would give to a new parent is this: Never trust anyone who is selling something. Many of the implements and gadgets touted to make parenting easier just create more parenting jobs. Plastic baby bathtubs are a great example. As a new parent, I thought that little over-the-sink tub was an essential parenting item. I’ve since realized a baby bathtub is just another thing to clean and store. It is much easier to take your baby into the bath with you whenever you wash up. It makes a nice, relaxing activity and there’s no wet baby furniture to clean up afterward.

Remember that baby bottle manufacturers are also selling something. Don’t believe the makers of alien-shaped bottle nipples labeled “more like mom.” No human female has appendages shaped like that. Baby bottles and artificial nipples contain chemicals that should never be ingested by an adult, much less a growing infant. They can also confuse young babies and interfere with their latch. In the rare case that an infant needs something other than breast milk, finger-feeding or spoon-feeding is typically safer than using a bottle.

The maker of baby formula who touts a product as “more like breast milk” is not trustworthy, either. These companies are selling something. When they distribute pamphlets claiming to provide breastfeeding tips, do not be fooled into believing they are actually advertising for their competition. These companies are financially dependent on breastfeeding problems and failures. They sell artificial milk, and they do so despite the knowledge that their product imparts innumerable health risks to your baby. Toss their tips and trust the breastfeeding experts at La Leche League for infant feeding advice.

Of course, some commercial offerings can be a blessing. A simple, one-piece potty chair is helpful for young children. Opt for a model that puts the child in a near squatting position, like the Baby Bjorn. Place the potty in a convenient location, explain its presence, and afterward try not to bring up the subject often. As many veteran moms and dads have discovered, the idea of “training” a toddler to use the potty is frustrating, self-defeating and useless. For most children, “toilet training” is no more logical than setting up language lessons to teach a normal infant how to talk. It makes no more sense than pushing a baby to walk, ready-or-not, simply because he has hit the one-year milestone. With a lot of leeway and very little prodding, most children will work it out before they go to kindergarten.

Indeed, most skills and character traits are learned from modeling, not molding. That’s why parents who smoke have little success warning their children never to start. Children do need boundaries and consequences, but neither can substitute for the time a parent spends simply being a decent, responsible human being in front of the children.

Dr. Gary Smalley says that children spell love T-I-M-E. These days we try to assuage our guilt by focusing on “quality rather than quantity.” It’s great when parents schedule the time to take a child to the park, or go on a parent-child date just to talk about life. However, few children open up on demand. Open, honest communication often happens when we are not expecting or monitoring it. It happens in the car, on the way to the mailbox, or while the pasta is boiling.

Parents have a tough job because our children are always changing. We learn along with them, and what we learn with one child may not work for the next child. I wish I knew how to teach a child to blow her nose. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please send me a hint before the next allergen comes into bloom.

Let them run

2008-05-19T08:51:00.000-07:00

The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.

Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.

In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.

Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.

If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”

Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.

Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.

Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.

Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.

Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.

Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.

Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.

Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.

At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”

So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.

Environmentalism on a shoestring

2008-05-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

How to save the planet without busting your budget

Magazines and other media often paint environmentalism as a more expensive lifestyle choice. Often they use the “green” mantra to promote companies who pay for advertising. Every product that is manufactured (even if it is “green”) requires energy to produce and fuel to distribute. Each of these products also creates its own waste stream. Instead of buying more products, consumers need to look at ways to use current resources more wisely. Happily, such choices are easier on the pocketbook as well as the planet.

Take bottled water, for instance. Bottled water is increasingly popular because it seems somehow “safer” than tap water. However, as much as 40% of commercial bottled water is filled straight from the tap. Bottled water generally contains the same level of pharmaceuticals and contaminants as the water flowing from the tap. In fact, federal government standards and safety testing requirements are actually higher for municipalities than for bottlers. The plastic bottles themselves are also unhealthy, containing chemicals that have been linked to increases in cancer. So skip the bottled water and drink from the tap.

If you live in an area without drinkable water, opt for large containers rather than single-servings. This reduces waste and plastic exposure. Another tip: Do not refill and reuse water bottles. Containers that have been deemed safe (so far) for one-time use leach out more chemicals with repeated use, particularly if you wash them with hot water or in the dishwasher. The safest water bottles are made from metal.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is the chemical in plastic receiving the most scrutiny at this time. BPA has been shown to mimic estrogen in mammals. BPA exposure causes cancers and other dysfunctions in the sex organs of laboratory animals. In 2003-2004, the CDC found BPA in the urine of 93% of adults and children tested.

Bottle-fed babies are at greatest risk, since most baby bottles contain BPA. Heating the bottles in the microwave, boiling them, or washing them in the dishwasher increases leaching.

Canada has already banned baby bottles made with BPA. Here in America, Wal-Mart plans to phase out the bottles slowly by not restocking them. Until 2009, Wal-Mart will continue selling the contaminated bottles in spite of known health risks to babies.

As with bottled water, there is a way to feed babies that costs less and is healthier, too. Mothers who nurse their babies at the breast provide excellent nutrition from a clean, safe package. By contrast, formula offers only substandard nutrition in a chemically-tainted container. Formula costs $1,500 to $2,800 per year (depending on brand), and in many cases that cost is on the shoulders of taxpayers. In addition to the cost of the formula and the tainted bottles, increased healthcare costs make formula-feeding a far more expensive option.

Formula feeding is also an ecological disaster. Dairy production for formula destroys land and pollutes air and water. Artificial feeding also crowds our landfills with 550 million formula cans (that’s enough cans to circle the earth one and a half times, if stacked end to end). The plastic bottles and nipples take 200-450 years to disintegrate.

So ditch the bottled water, and the baby bottles, too. Here are a few other tricks to reduce environmental impact and save money:

Cut down on plastic shopping bags. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a floating island of plastic debris twice as big as Texas. The debris is particularly dangerous for birds and sea turtles. Turtles mistake floating plastic bags for jellyfish. Birds swallow tiny bits of broken-down plastic, which they cannot pass or break down. As plastic fills the stomach, no room remains for digesting real food. The animals literally starve to death. According to Greenpeace, at least 267 marine species have suffered from ingestion or entanglement of such debris.

Ireland, Uganda and most recently China have all banned free plastic shopping bags, recognizing the enormous environmental impact the bags create. The Chinese ban is particularly significant in light of China’s reputation as a producer of lead toys and unprecedented carbon emissions. The Chinese ban alone saves approximately 37 million barrels of oil.

Small families may be able to get by with reusable shopping bags. I have not found this to be practical for our large family, but I request that items like milk, juice, and laundry detergent be placed in my cart without a bag. Like many families, we reuse plastic shopping bags for small trashcans, stinky messes, or wet bathing suits. Some grocery stores collect and recycle plastic bags, and many still offer paper bags, which are easier to recycle.

Another way to help save the planet is to use non-toxic household cleaners. Clean the mirrors with vinegar-and-water and old newspapers. Try Borax or baking soda for scrubbing. These products are cheaper, more environmentally-friendly, and also safer for any pets or toddlers who may find them in your cupboard.

Use half the recommended laundry detergent, and skip the fabric softener altogether. For stubborn stains, break out the Borax for a bit of scrubbing. An outdoor clothesline saves energy and results in whiter whites. Even if line-drying is not practical all the time, use it when it is. Every kilowatt we forgo prolongs the life of the world we live in.

Buy locally-grown produce. In the summer time, fruit stands abound in town squares and on rural back roads. Produce from stands is likely to be fresher and have fewer chemicals, whereas grocery store produce often comes from other countries, is heavily sprayed and/or waxed, and is picked before it ripens. Eating locally-grown produce reduces America’s dependence on foreign oil, saves fossil fuels and reduces greenhouse gasses associated with trucking food to chain stores. Patronizing local businesses is also a win-win for the community.

Buy second-hand. When you purchased used goods, you not only save money, you also prevent that item for ending up in the landfill and you prevent a similar item from being produced. Second-hand items also lack the packaging that creates so much unnecessary waste. Clothing and furniture are our favorite second-hand items.

To look at some of the magazine articles and websites on environmentalism, one would think that “going green” must involve an enormous shopping trip. In practice, families often find that the most sensible environmental solutions actually save money.

Jeannie Babb Taylor

May, 2008

http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/

What the issues are (and aren't)

2008-04-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

As campaign season heats up to a rolling boil, voters are bombarded on every side by campaign slogans and media chatter. Everybody wants to tell you how to vote. Some people complain when I am transparent about my advice (“Vote Democratic!”), yet they are oblivious to the subtle pressure emanating from newscasters, preachers, and the guy in the next cubical at work.

Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.

Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.

Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”

These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.

Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.

Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.

The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.

There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.

Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.

The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.

Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.

If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.

Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.

But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.

Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.

We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.

It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.

The truth about universal healthcare

2008-04-16T11:52:00.000-07:00

Republican Party spokespersons big and small are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to combat the positive message of the Democratic Party. Over the next few months, you will hear them call good evil and evil good in order to trick America into four more years of Bush-style fear-mongering, war-mongering and recession.

Healthcare may be the issue that shipwrecks their good-is-evil message. For years, Republicans told us that “universal healthcare” was a dangerous, wicked Democratic plan that must be opposed. They said if everyone had healthcare, there would be no healthcare at all! Back when most voters had adequate healthcare coverage, we swallowed the lies. We believed that if healthcare were extended to the masses, it would no longer be as good for us.

Times have changed. Many of us are finding ourselves under-insured, with huge deductibles to meet before our policy ever kicks in. Many more are uninsured altogether, either because we cannot afford the employee portion of the premium, or because our company can no longer afford to offer health insurance. Will people with little or no healthcare really buy the “universal healthcare is evil” mantra?

Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” really brought the issue to the forefront of the American conscience. It is not that Americans did not know about the crisis. Many of us have experienced it first hand. What the movie and the buzz about it revealed is that the healthcare crisis is widespread. We are not alone in our struggles.

In fact, one survey found that 30% of respondents had delayed seeing a doctor about a known and potentially serious medical condition, because of inability to pay. Medical inflation is currently twice as high as the standard rate of inflation, meaning this problem will not resolve itself. Workers are paying more but getting less, with premiums rising four times faster than wages.

Let’s consider it from another angle. Every American child has the right to an education, whether or not her parents can afford private school. There are schools on every corner – private schools, public schools, and kitchen-table home schools. To be sure, the public education system has flaws. (So do private schools and home schools, but nobody talks about that.) Despite the flaws, we can still say this: Any American child can walk through the doors of the public school house and receive an education.

Unfortunately, I know some people who would like to see public education abolished. As you can imagine, they are people who can easily afford to educate their children privately, and they do not appreciate having to foot the bill for other people’s children.

In the dreams of the selfish, their little Richie would never have to compete with the smart but poor kid down the road. Only the wealthy would be able to educate their children. As for the rest of Americans, well, they just need to be trained for manual labor and subordinate positions to little Richie.

Most of us would be appalled at such thinking. We have been raised to believe that a basic education is every child’s birth-rite. Aren’t health and life more important than education? If every child has the right to be taught to read, then does not every child have the right to receive treatment for a life-threatening condition like asthma?

Universal healthcare simply means healthcare for all. Private healthcare plans will not be eradicated any more than private schools have been eradicated. Those who are happy with their current healthcare can keep it.

Health care is at least as important as public education, public libraries, public transportation and other services that we make available to all citizens. It is time for the United States to step into the twenty-first century and provide healthcare for all Americans. To help us do that, vote Democratic!

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

Soaring fuel prices force trucks off the road

2008-04-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

Relief may come in November

Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.

What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?

On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.

Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.

Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.

Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.

Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.

Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.

Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.

Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.

Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.

How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.

What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:

Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.

No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.

Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.

How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.

Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.

A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.

Northwest Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition hosts international expert:

2008-04-01T09:56:00.000-07:00

Breastfeeding is normal, formula is inferior, and birth makes the difference

Nurses and lactation consultants from all over the southeast convened in Dalton last week to hear the latest in breastfeeding technology from renowned expert Diane Weissinger, MS, IBCLC.

According to Weissinger, the “breast is best” tagline is a disservice to women and babies. Such slogans suggest that formula-feeding is the norm and breastfeeding is something better than the norm. Formula companies often state that breastfeeding is “the ideal.” Of course, something that is ideal is lofty but usually unattainable. None of us would claim to be ideal parents, for example. By calling breastfeeding ideal, they suggest that it is a lofty, unattainable goal.

Wiessinger says, "The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. These are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary."

How often are we reminded that breastfeeding is simply normal? Every mammal species on the planet uses mammary glands to nurture its offspring. This is one of the defining characteristics that classifies humans as mammals. By choosing not to feed our infants in the normal way, we expose them to many known and unknown risks.

Wiessinger says there are about 13,000 studies that show problems with formula feeding. These studies are typically pitched as pro-breastfeeding (as if formula were the norm) rather than anti-formula. Thus, the experts tell us that breastfeeding reduces obesity or respiratory infections or earaches. Instead, they should simply state that formula increases obesity, respiratory infections and earaches. Likewise, breastfeeding does not reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); formula increases the risk of SIDS.

Instead of emphasizing only the benefits of breastfeeding, professionals should stress the risks of artificial feeding. Despite the “more like breastmilk” ads, formula-feeding remains distinctly inferior to breastfeeding in every aspect. Formula not only increases the risk of diseases and disorders; it also fails to adequately nurture the brain, resulting in a lower IQ. Further, formula-feeding does not foster the maternal-infant bond the way breastfeeding does, because the hormone cycle is broken.

Breastfeeding is the physiological standard for human babies. Formula-feeding is not even second best. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) formula is only a distant fourth. WHO urges that all babies be breastfed by their mothers. In cases where this is impossible, the second best alternative is to feed the baby the mother’s pumped milk. As a third best alternative, babies should be fed breastmilk from another human mother. Only in cases where human milk is impossible or the baby cannot digest breastmilk (such as with galactosemia), should formula even be considered.

If formula feeding is so inferior, why aren’t American doctors and health authorities warning of the dangers? Most will say, “We don’t want to make women feel guilty.” Yet they have no problem making mothers feel guilty for smoking around the baby, or for placing a sleeping baby on his tummy.

Instead of warning parents about the risks of formula feeding, hospitals hand out formula samples, literature and advertising gifts. They receive kick-backs from formula companies in the form of pens, notepads, and other items. While hospitals shrug off these gifts as meaningless trinkets that do not affect their work, Diane Weissinger asks why formula companies would spend huge sums of money on this advertising, if it did not work?

In return for the goodies and the donuts, the hospital sends the company’s formula marketing literature and samples home with every mother in a logo-branded diaper bag. Even those women who plan to exclusively breastfeed get the bag. The diaper bag and its contents send a clear message that the experts at the hospital approve of formula. This tacit endorsement undermines breastfeeding promotion. Research shows that women who receive the bag are more likely to resort to formula once they get home, and 93% select the formula brand associated with the bag. Obviously, the strategy works.

The diaper bags are not the only way the medical community colludes with formula manufacturers. According to Weissinger, the delivery room procedures of most hospitals unwittingly work to undermine breastfeeding long before the baby takes its first breath.

Weissinger stumbled onto the birth-breast connection while studying the nursing behavior of animals. Weissinger was an animal behaviorist before she became a renowned lactation consultant. It was this background that inspired her to put together a talk on the breastfeeding and parenting lessons that can be learned by observing other mammals. Initially she intended to cover topics like how mammal babies find the nipple on their own, how mammal mothers never look at a clock before nursing the babies, and how animals wean naturally with no formal plan.

As Weissinger prepared the material, she was inevitably drawn to the distinctions between mothers who bond with and care for their infants, and those who do not. In every mammal species, she discovered that mothers who are deprived of their chosen place, time and sensations during the birth process have difficulty bonding and breastfeeding. Mammal bonding is adversely affected if birth is too hard – and if birth is too easy. The babies are even at risk if the birth is too clean.

Whether the mammal studied is a terrier, a horse, or a rat, any interference with the birth risks the breastfeeding relationship. Interference might include something as benign as the presence of an outsider, or as radical as cesarean delivery. Veterinarians who must surgically remove a baby animal go to great lengths to normalize the experience by allowing as much labor as possible, placing the placenta with the mother she wakes, and leaving the newborns in an untouched state. They understand the risks.

Human beings are mammals. Because we are more intelligent than most other mammals, human parents will usually continue to care for a child no matter how it comes into the world. Yet, according to Diane Weissinger, medical birth is robbing mothers and babies of the easy, instinctive breastfeeding experience that results from normal birth.

Modern hospital birth generally involves an epidural. Wiessinger equates a long epidural to drinking fourteen cans of soda. Excess fluid swells the woman’s tissues, including her breasts and nipples, which makes latching on more difficult. The epidural also slows down her milk, increasing the risk of jaundice and early supplements for the baby – two responses that increase the risk of early weaning.

The epidural drugs affect the baby as well as the mother. Since breastfeeding is primarily the baby’s job, newborns need to be awake and aware. Drugged babies have more difficulty recognizing and attaching to the breast, more sucking problems, and more bonding problems. Poor initial sucking may result in nipple damage – which is not a nice event in a place filled with unfamiliar and sometimes antibiotic-resistant germs.

Wiessinger says, “Mothers in our culture haven’t given birth since the early part of the 20th century. And no mammal who has birth taken from her goes on to nurse easily, or even to mother easily. It’s not the breastfeeding that’s the problem. It’s the birth!”

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/

Why we need to elect Democrats

2008-03-22T09:25:00.000-07:00

Are you concerned about family values? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Democrats founded the Department of Education in America. Democrats passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to prevent working parents from being fired when they have to leave work to care for a sick child. That act had been on hold for years because Republicans opposed the idea.

Republicans also opposed the World Health Organization (WHO) code to hold formula companies accountable for their unethical marketing tactics that harm mothers and babies. While the rest of the world signed the WHO code in 1980, babies in the United States had no protection from unscrupulous corporations until Democratic President Bill Clinton took office. Democrats have a bill before the House now to protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination and offer them a tax break for contributing to the public health.

Speaking of children, Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of poor children. Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of funding cuts and repeated vetoes by Republicans.

Are you concerned about Christian values? The last president who actually attended church was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The next-to-last president to attend church was a Democrat, too. Jimmy Carter preaches, teaches and has written numerous devotionals. As for the current crop of presidential hopefuls, Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a history of Christian faith that includes conversion, church membership and attendance. By contrast, McCain is so loosely attached to any church that he changed his credentials from “lifelong Episcopalian” to “been a Baptist for years” mid-campaign.

Are you looking to protect our personal freedoms and civil liberties? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Republicans have conceived attack after attack on the rights we hold dear. Bush launched the Patriot Act, suspending the right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus protects us from unlawful arrest by preventing authorities from detaining a person without evidence of a particular crime. Without habeas corpus, we can be arrested without ever breaking the law, and held indefinitely.

Republicans continue to chip away at our civil liberties by spying on Americans through the telephone companies. Although the companies’ actions are illegal and a violation of privacy, blanket immunity protects the companies from prosecution.

Perhaps you are concerned about the economy and prefer to vote for fiscal conservatives. That’s why we need to elect Democrats. The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat. The last president to preside over a budget surplus was a Democrat. Republicans have not so much as broken even since the Nixon era. In fact, President Clinton left office in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus. By 2005, President Bush had burned through that extra money and accumulated a $319 billion deficit.

After another term of Bush, the deficit has spiraled to $9,413 billion at the time of the writing of this article. The deficit will be higher when you actually read this piece, since it is increasing by $1.7 billion per day. In case you’re wondering what this means to you, your personal share of the budget deficit is $31,001.26 and rising.

Sure, Republicans will cut funding in the name of tax relief. They cut school lunch programs, health programs, and help for the elderly. They cut school funds to help special needs kids – both gifted and learning delayed. Federal and state cuts mean that individual school districts must raise property taxes, suspend programs, or lay off teachers. Look around you and notice that they are doing all of the above just to make ends meet and stay solvent.

Republicans like to call Democrats “tax and spend.” In reality, it is Republicans who tax and spend – but they cut important programs while doing so. They spend everything in the budget and more, then use the budget as an excuse to hurt the helpless. After your child’s special needs teacher is let go, do you think you will receive a tax refund based on her lay-off? Hardly. That money is needed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war against Iraq costs Americans some $275 million per day. According to the New York Times, the $1.2 trillion (that’s over a million millions) spent on Iraq up through January is enough money to fund the following U.S. improvements: An unprecedented public health campaign that doubles cancer research funding, treats every unmanaged diabetic and heart disease patient, and saves millions of lives through global immunization. In ten years, this program would only use half the money. We could also fund a preschool program for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country, and give New Orleans a gigantic reconstruction boost. The rest of the money could be spent improving national security by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which Bush chooses to ignore. We would still have money to finance the war in Afghanistan to hold back the Taliban, and fund a peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur.

Are you concerned about security in a time of war? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Let’s look at security on a local level. Notice that the sheriffs of Whitfield, Walker and Catoosa counties are all Democrats, and all known for their ability to keep order and provide safety. Nationally, the same is true. It was a Democratic president who won World War I. It was a Democratic president who won World War II. What exactly is the Republican war legacy? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan and Iraq? Republicans do not even declare war properly. They surely don’t know how to declare peace.

Democratic leaders are our best hope for a brighter future.

Misogyny in America

2008-03-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

A culture of violence against women

If you think females have achieved equality in the United States, just scan the headlines sometime. Misogyny is alive and well. Consider the marine who raped his female comrade, then killed her and buried her in his back yard to avoid a paternity test.

Consider also the husband who stabbed his wife and then burned his own house, killing her along with their four children.

In Florida, police say a man beat his four-month-old daughter Ariana to death on Christmas day. His motive? He wanted a son, not a daughter.

Another man tossed four babies from a bridge after arguing with his wife. On national news, the mother sobbed, “Why didn’t he kill me instead of the children? It’s too much hurting.” She recognized that she was the true target of his heinous actions.

Other hateful men strike more directly, killing women they know and profess to love, or even strangers. As women’s bodies turn up in parks, ponds and parked cars across the southeast, new questions are being raised about old missing persons files.

Whenever the topic of domestic violence comes up, some ill-informed person will inevitably drone, “If the women don’t like it, why do they stay?”

The answer is easy: They don’t stay. The majority of battered women try to escape their abusers as the violence escalates. Most are successful in time. Some women end up in body bags, and others are made to disappear forever.

Part of the problem is that we, as a society, are always asking the wrong question. We should not ask why victims are abused; we should ask why abusers do what they do.

Why do some men feel it is their privilege to exercise control over the woman they profess to love? Why do some men rape and kill women? For that matter, why do some men feel they have the right to forward sexist emails, harass their female co-workers, or try to intimidate female columnists?

Abuse thrives on power inequities. That’s why female-on-male violence and child-on-parent violence are not nearly as common as wife battering and child abuse. We live in a society where most women experience lifelong power inequities.

Economically, men’s earnings still overshadow women’s. Many women are dependent on their husband’s incomes, particularly when women bear the brunt of childcare. Economic inequity places abused women at a disadvantage, as they find themselves weighing safety against homelessness. For the children’s sake, many women stay in relationships that make them prisoners in their own homes.

Biology determines that most marriages involve physical inequity. Men are, on average, taller and stronger and possess a greater percentage of muscle mass than their wives. In a healthy marriage, the physical difference leads to feelings of protectiveness. In an abusive marriage, the weaknesses of the smaller partner are exploited to incite fear and maintain control.

Violence against women is a crime. The law books say so, but society is slow to let go of a paradigm so ingrained in the culture. For women to be safe and equal in America, changes must occur in every facet of society.

Law enforcement must change. Authorities must arrest – and charge and sentence – men who hit, punch, choke, trap, kick, or yank women about the hair. These actions are not privileges included with the marriage license. These actions are crimes, and should be prosecuted every time. The prosecution initiative should not be on the shoulders of the victim, who often caves in to the abuser out of fear.

Policemen who attack or threaten women should be subject to stronger sentences. If a man does not protect women from violence (including his own), then society must not trust him with a badge and a gun. The abusive cop’s crime is double, because he violates his oath of office and his vow of marriage simultaneously. The woman’s fear is also doubled, knowing that such men have resources and training to track her down if she tries to escape, and the opportunity to destroy evidence and cover their own tracks.

Parents must change. We must teach our children that the secret to a successful marriage is in applying the Golden Rule: Treat others like you want to be treated. Parents must teach it, and more importantly, model it every day. Let children see that marriage problems are resolved through consensus, not one-upmanship. Romance is created by putting your beloved on a pedestal, not establishing power inequities where “might makes right.”

Parenting itself must change. Children who are subjected to violence in the home frequently grow up to participate in violence dramas of their own. Parents must learn gentle parenting techniques to guide children without inadvertently teaching them violent tactics or damaging their self-esteem.

Hollywood must change. Violence against women is glorified nightly in every cinema and most every home in America. Shows like Criminal Minds and Killer Instinct almost invariably focus on the glamorized murder of a woman. Another generation of young people is being raised to believe that violence against women is titillating entertainment. Until TV changes, just turn it off.

Churches must change. Many pastors teach that the man has “final say” and that wives should obey husbands. Such sermons typically close with a word about husbands being kind, but the connection cannot be missed: Spiritualizing manhood sets women up for abuse by establishing an eternal and church-ordained power inequity.

The president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary stands as a not-so-shining example of such white-washed misogyny. Ten years ago, when the Atlanta Journal Constitution asked Paige Patterson about women, he replied, “Everyone should own at least one.”

Perhaps he wasn’t joking. Patterson became the architect of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention at the turn of the millennium. Under Patterson’s leadership, the conservatives succeeded in stripping ordained female chaplains of their endorsement. They sought to replace the “priesthood of the believer” doctrine with husbands being priests of their wives. They forced missionaries to agree to male-over-female marriages or else give up their funding.

After Paige Patterson became president of the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), he fired a theology professor just for being female. Dr. Sheri Klouda, PhD, earned her degree at SWBTS and taught Hebrew there prior to Patterson’s gender discrimination. Patterson claims he has a right to discriminate against women, since SWBTS is a religious institution. Klouda responded by filing suit in federal court.

What does this have to do with domestic violence? Everything. Those who strip women of their status and financial means are also happy to subject them to other forms of abuse. Patterson himself was caught on tape telling other pastors that he never condones divorce – and rarely even separation or seeking of help -- for victims of marital violence.

In that transcript, Patterson shares an example in which he advised a battered wife to stay with her husband. He told her to submit to the man, to pray for him, and to get ready for the violence to increase. Patterson said he was “happy” when the woman came back to his church with two black eyes, because her husband also came.

All of these attitudes contribute to a culture of violence against women. We cannot expect abused women to solve the problem any more than we would expect children to solve the problem of child abuse, or pets to solve the problem of animal cruelty. Those of us who are free and strong must intervene to help victims.

To help or receive help in northwest Georgia, contact the Family Crisis Center at (706) 375-7630. In other areas, call 1-800-799-SAFE or TTY 1-800-787-3224.

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

Confederate flag represents both heritage and hate

2008-03-05T14:50:00.000-08:00

City of Ringgold stands strong against pressure

In recent weeks, news outlets have carried the story of a battle between the city of Ringgold, Georgia and “Southern rights” groups. I use quotes because these groups seem to be concerned about the rights of only some Southerners -- namely those who are white and cling to the notion that “the South’s gonna do it again.” Their concern for the rights of black Southerners is particularly underwhelming.

The American Civil War is unique in that the federal government sought to restore rather than destroy the rebels. The winners chose to honor the losers. It’s true that plenty of exploitation went on following the Civil War, including political corruption and “carpetbaggers” who came down from the North to prey on the disaffected southerners and snap up failing estates. Still, the Union pursued an overarching theme of reconciliation. Men who raised arms against their country were granted a presidential pardon. Even the generals, who resigned their position with the Union army in order to fight against it, were pardoned in full.

The United States immortalizes soldiers who fought on both sides of the conflict, erecting monuments in honor of both Confederate and Union victories. As such, the Confederacy has been venerated rather than condemned in American history.

It’s no surprise that many Georgians still cling to the image of a noble Confederacy. Georgia is the home of die-hards. We value independence. We mistrust Big Government. We are proud and we are stubborn – and we consider it an honor when someone tells us so.

We are also a family-oriented people, bound to revere the blood that once spilled on the grass, yet still flows through our own veins. It is natural that we want to honor and defend our Confederate ancestors – who probably never even owned slaves, and fought valiantly for what they believed was right.

As Lincoln famously stated when dedicating the battlefield at Gettysburg, “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.” And we do. Thousands of acres of fields and monuments, numerous museums, battalions of re-enactors, along with dozens of country tunes, ghost stories, and an entire genre of literature ensure that we will never forget.

But is it altogether fitting and proper to continue flying the Confederate flag – and indeed, not just any Confederate flag but the actual battle flag – over public buildings in Georgia today? Can white Georgians claim the right to keep waving that emblem in the face of other Georgians who experienced attacks and demonstrations, feared lynching, and faced every kind of discrimination?

Perhaps we can, legally –but that does not mean we should? I applaud the City of Ringgold for taking a stand back in 2005 when the city council voted 3-2 to remove the flag. I applaud the city again today for standing firm against pressure and even lawsuits from radical extremists.

As for historical accuracy, the city has done its homework and determined that the blue and white flag of General Patrick Cleburne was the flag flown at the depot during the Civil War. At the Battle of Ringgold Gap, no flag was flying; it was an ambush.

If historical authenticity is the goal, the city already has the right flag flying. But what if the goal is something else? Consider the battle over Georgia’s state flag, for example.

Those who pine for “the real Georgia flag” are not aiming for historical accuracy. The flag of 1956 had never before been a Georgia state flag. In fact, no previous Georgia flag featured the Confederate battle cross. The flag of 1956 was introduced as an act of resistance against Civil Rights progress – especially Brown v. Board of Education, which declared segregated education unlawful. Adding the Confederate battle cross to the Georgia state flag was clearly a slap in the face of black Georgians, and many still feel its sting.

Ironically, the United Daughters of the Confederacy spoke against the adoption of the 1956 flag, warning that it would cause strife. They upheld the then-current Georgia flag as a more pure commemoration of the Confederacy. In fact, the pre-1956 flag was almost a replica of the “stars and bars” flown as the first national flag of the Confederacy. The Perdue flag that we fly today is also based closely on that Confederate flag.

If Georgians ever want a historically accurate flag that does not stir up racial tensions, one is available. The original Georgia flag depicted the state seal on a field of deep blue – no stars, no bars, and no battle emblems.

Does the Confederate battle flag represent heritage or hatred? The answer is yes. It represents a heritage that included hatred. Humans were bought and sold like livestock – and our culture declared that such practices were condoned or even mandated by God. Hatred also reigned during the 50’s (and before and after) when crosses were burned and bombs were detonated in Catoosa County. Hatred still clings to the Southern culture today. Hatred is not always passionate and fiery. It may manifest in simple disregard. Hatred may say, “This is my right, and I don’t care who it hurts.”

For some people, waving that rebel flag is way to curse the present times when they must compete alongside people of color in the job market. Their romanticism of the Old South knows no bounds. It’s as if these people watched “Gone with the Wind” and believed that life was really like that. They imagine debutante parties on big plantations, black slaves who loved their bonds and were considered part of the master’s family – well, the cotton-picking part of the family anyway.

Perhaps these would-be Confederates imagine that if the North had not intervened, they would be standing on a balcony with a woman in a big hoop skirt while a black person stood by silently fanning them, like a human appliance. Of course, this reality existed only for a few. The truth is that there were as many poor white people in Georgia as there were black slaves.

If these “Sons of Confederates” want to get back the Good Ole Days, they ought to climb into their overalls and start picking cotton. That’s what most of our Southern ancestors did. They worked the land, they scraped by, and they were lucky if they had a pair of shoes on their feet. In many ways, their life was not much different than the black slaves who worked the fields of the rich. But at least they were free.

The rest of us are happy to honor dead Americans on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line – once in a while and with historical perspective. We can appreciate the ideals behind the struggle and the bravery of those involved without condoning the more sinister agendas that propelled both sides into battle. We know the history, and we have no desire to turn back the clock.

For those who insist on flying the Confederate flag – just fly it on your own property. Fly the Bonnie Blue secession flag bearing a single star. Fly the battle flag with Saint Andrew’s cross. Fly the 1956 segregation flag. Fly a swastika if you prefer. But do not pretend that your actions don’t hurt or anger some of your neighbors, and embarrass the rest of us.

copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

ACOG says homebirth is a fashionable trend

2008-02-25T05:25:00.000-08:00

Pregnant women read the writing on the wall

A few years ago I noticed a sign on the wall at a local women’s clinic. It stated “Our doctors will no longer perform VBAC.”

The sign made me laugh. VBAC stands for vaginal birth after cesarean. Since the doctors in that practice were males, it was difficult to imagine them performing a vaginal birth. Doctors do not perform vaginal births. Pregnant women do.

For women with past c-sections, the sign is not funny at all. This prohibition jettisons women’s rights back to the 1950’s when the mantra was “Once a cesarean, always a cesarean.” Women are being robbed of a fundamental childbirth choice, even though studies confirm the safety of VBAC for most women.

Healthy People 2010 urges doctors to cut the cesarean rate in half, from over 30% down to 15% by 2010. According to Dr. Marsden Wagner, former director of women’s and children’s health for the World Health Organization, international studies show that the optimal cesarean rate for a country is 10-15%. “If the rate is below 10 percent, maternal mortality goes up,” he said. “If it’s over 15 percent, maternal mortality goes up.”

In fact, a study published in the February 13, 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association journal reported that women undergoing planned c-sections are three times more likely to die.

Cesarean section is major abdominal surgery. It exposes the mother to increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, anesthesia complication, organ damage, scar tissue, secondary infertility, postpartum depression, maternal-infant bonding complications, breastfeeding difficulties and death. Is it any wonder maternal deaths are on the rise here in the US?

Cesarean section subjects infants to increased risk as well. In November, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that the risk of neonatal death was 70% higher for surgically delivered babies than for normal deliveries.

The International Cesarean Network (ICAN) advises pregnant women that they have the right to refuse any medical treatment, including cesarean section. But how can a woman with a previous c-section refuse surgery when no physician around will attend a VBAC?

Obstetricians have pushed pregnant women into a corner. Some women are weighing their options: Unnecessary surgery vs. homebirth.

Homebirth is relatively rare these days. In 1900, 95% of babies were born at home. Since 1955, that number has hovered somewhere around 1%. Yet the practice persists, not only among VBAC-seekers, but also among women who were unhappy with previous vaginal birth experiences in the hospital, and even among some first-time mothers.

Homebirth is gaining recognition within the mainstream as the result of Ricki Lake’s highly acclaimed documentary “The Business of Being Born.” The movie focuses on the profiteering that goes on in the birth industry at the expense of mothers and babies, and offers a look at how empowering and thrilling natural birth can be.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is striking back. On February 6, 2008, ACOG published a press release condemning homebirth. What the statement leaves unwritten is that every homebirth represents an economic loss of thousands of dollars for doctors and hospitals. After all, ACOG is essentially a trade union for the OBGYN industry. An anti-homebirth statement from ACOG is like an anti-tap water statement from Pierrer.

Taking a swipe at Ricki Lake, ACOG says, “Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre.”

Calling homebirth “fashionable” or “trendy” is laughable. Hospital birth is the recent historical trend. Babies have been born in homes for thousands of years. Women birthed them, and women caught them, and women nursed them.

In fact, if ACOG members would cast their myopic gaze across the Atlantic, they would find that European births are primarily attended by midwives. One third of Dutch babies are born in their own homes. Or if they peered across the Pacific, they would find that 70% of Japanese births are attended by midwifes, often in dedicated birth houses or in private homes.

The CIA states that babies are more likely to survive in 41 other countries than in the United States. Babies fare better in South Korea and Cuba than here. The safest places to be born are Singapore, Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong, followed by a long list of European countries.

Are US newborn deaths the result of over-medicated birth, c-section, or lack of health care? Take your pick. Countries where babies are less likely to die typically offer universal healthcare and home midwifery.

ACOG seems more concerned with evoking emotion than delivering facts. Consider this statement: “Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” Translation: Homebirthers are selfish mothers who put their babies at risk.

Does ACOG at least support their contention with scientific data? Perhaps a study actually showing that hospital birth is safer? Not a chance. The studies, in fact, offer the opposite conclusion: Uncomplicated pregnancies end just as well at home.

In fact, US hospitals aren’t doing so well. Our country has the highest rate of cesarean sections, and the second worse newborn death rate in the developed world.

According to the 2007 State of the World’s Mothers report, “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death] rate is higher than any of those countries.”

All ACOG can say about studies is: “It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous.” In other words, the studies do not support ACOG’s contention that hospital birth is safer – which makes it completely irresponsible for them to assert that homebirthers have misplaced their priorities.

ACOG has apparently done enough market research to determine one of the factors drawing some women to homebirth: America’s soaring cesarean rate. The obstetricians have a response to this, too: “Multiple factors are responsible for the current cesarean rate, but emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes.”

Translation: “The only reason we’re cutting 1/3 of American mothers is because they’re old, they’re fat, they’re lazy and they want to be cut.” These doctors refuse to take responsibility for America’s outlandish c-section rate, even though the rate varies widely between practices and is lower in natural (drug-free) labors where women are allowed to eat, drink, and move around.

The ACOG statement even addresses VBAC, stating that women with cesarean scars are more prone to uterine rupture and thus VBAC should always take place in a hospital, never in a home. Anyone smell a rat? It’s dishonest to say VBAC should be hospital-bound and obstetrician-supervised, when obstetricians and hospitals refuse to participate.

Whoever penned the ACOG statement needs a crash-course in marketing. Obstetricians will find they are unable to shame homebirthing women back into the maternity ward. Given a choice between fat & lazy vs. selfish, we prefer to selfishly protect the precious lives of our little ones.

Homeschooling grows up

2008-02-20T20:36:00.000-08:00

Self-educated families enjoy more options than ever before

If the term “homeschool” conjures images of identically-dressed elementary students filling out workbooks around the kitchen table and later winning the state spelling bee, your ideas about the practice are outdated. That’s not to say there are no kitchen tables or spelling bees involved, but there are as many ways to homeschool as there are families who fill out the Declaration of Intent each fall.

In some families, homeschool literally means school at home. You’ll find the walls lined with shelved textbooks and dry-erase boards. Carefully designed curriculums and meticulous schedules guide the students from one grade to the next, following a scope-and-sequence much like that found in public schools. A transcript is steadily assembled which looks very much like a public school transcript, with standard classes listed, a GPA calculated, and extra-curricular activities noted to the side.

In other homes, learning is far more organic. The textbooks are still around, but are currently being used for reference guides, booster seats, or anatomical models for a budding artist. Students may be found lying on the floor playing with a scientific calculator, hunched over a laptop writing a novel, or out in the driveway on rollerblades. More likely, the students won’t be home at all. The parents have become facilitators, relinquishing their teaching roles to spend their time obtaining requested materials or driving their students around town. These kids direct their own education without regard for whether it can be articulated in the common language of transcripts and GPA’s.

While some homeschool families are learning outside the box, others are finding innovative ways to recreate the box. The array of classes, co-ops and alternative learning groups continues to grow. Students can take classes ranging from core subjects like Algebra to extra-curriculars like fencing or writing fantasy literature. They can dress up for the homeschool prom and even participate in a graduation exercise.

Many of the efforts are student initiatives. Consider the Homeschool Shakespeare Troupe, for example. Originally launched by parents, the eight-month-long endeavor is now led mostly by homeschool graduates. They conduct auditions in February so the actors will have months to learn their lines. During the summer, organizers host a week-long Shakespeare camp where students learn stage terms and participate in drama workshops. The actors sew their own costumes and speak to each other in Elizabethan English, creating their own Shakespearean culture. The week culminates with dress rehearsal and then a very professional performance in a packed theatre. The troupe is growing so rapidly, organizers have decided to schedule two shows this year.

In every sizable town, classes and tutoring are offered by homeschool parents who are especially proficient in a specific area such as foreign language. Sometimes the tutoring becomes a lucrative business or even a small school with multiple teachers offering weekly classes to area students.

Other times it happens the other way around: The parents join together to form a cooperative and bring in a teacher. One of the most successful area co-ops is right here in Catoosa County.

On Friday mornings, students from all over the tri-state area converge on Poplar Springs Baptist Church in Ringgold. The parking lot is filled with mini-vans. Teenagers mill around the yard with backpacks slung over their shoulders, greeting each other and talking to the younger children who stream past. Some of the students carry musical instruments. Another has a basketball tucked under his arm.

The range of electives offered by the co-op continues to grow, including foreign language and upper math classes at the request of parents, and a journalism class at the request of students. The kids at the co-op form their own coalitions, organizing pickup basketball games and Friday night bowling plans.

One day a girl brought her fiddle to the co-op. The next week, a viola and a harp appeared on campus. Soon the students had formed their own Celtic ensemble called The Revelations.

Today’s homeschooling families are less rigid than in the past. Some make occasional use of public and private schools, as well as participating in the aforementioned co-ops and classes. Many families have some children in school and others learning at home.

As the homeschool population has grown, expanded, and become more mainstream, colleges have become more accepting of students educated at home. Some colleges actively recruit them. Covenant College, for example, boasts that 17% of new admissions are homeschooled students.

Homeschoolers are not so different from other kids. They grow through the same ages and stages, finding their identity and ferreting out their interests like anyone else. Some of them are brilliant, and others struggle with basic math.

Still, these students are growing up in a different paradigm. Their world is structured to meet their needs and help them grow. Public and private schools attempt much the same thing, but with the necessary assumption that most kids need the same things at the same times. The homeschool world is far more individualized.

Homeschooling is not new. Throughout history, families have educated their own children for numerous reasons. Pioneers taught their own children when schools were not available. Author Louisa May Alcott recounts in the autobiographal “Little Women” how her mother pulled her little sister out of school in response to a teacher’s cruelty. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Woolf and other well-known geniuses received their educations at home. Figure-skaters, child actors and other prodigies have often been tutored privately.

Ansel Adams, arguably the greatest photographer of the twentieth century, was educated at home. In his autobiography, Adams wrote, “I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, given my native hyperactivity, could have been confused and catastrophic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes, propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father.”

Nurturing the internal spark inside each student is the true goal of home education. It is a goal shared by quality educators everywhere, whether they teach students in a two-story public school house, around a kitchen table, or in the church gymnasium.

Understanding God's economy: an attitude of abundance

2008-02-07T05:49:00.000-08:00

For years, self-help gurus have been trying to help us understand what makes some people happy and successful, sometimes in spite of tremendous personal tragedy, while others are miserable even when healthy, well-fed and solvent. One of the key differences is a belief in abundance.

Some people view the world as a basically good place with an abundance of resources. Others have a scarcity mentality. They think in terms of getting “a piece of the pie.” In the scarcity mentality, there is only one pie. To get more of it, you must slice it differently or take a piece from somebody else. The abundance mentality is more like the old Dorito’s slogan: “Crunch all you want, we’ll make more.”

Scarcity says “I hate campaign season. All those politicians waste millions of dollars that could have been spent on something important, like housing the poor.” Abundance says, “I love campaign season. All these crazy rich people voluntarily pump millions of dollars into the economy. We don’t even have to tax them!”

Scarcity is the root of jealousy. When others succeed, those of the scarcity mindset count it as a personal failure. Someone is getting more pie! It stands to reason, then, that someone must be getting less pie. They start eyeing their own pie critically. Has it been sliced a tad skinnier while they weren’t looking?

Abundance loves to see others succeed. If my friends and neighbors are bringing in more money, scoring awards, enjoying good relationships or earning scholarships, then I have reason to hope, too. A prime example of this mindset is from the musical “Fiddler on the Roof.” When the poor peasant Tevye announces the engagement of his oldest daughter to the wealthy butcher, the other men in the town sing:

“We’ll raise a glass and sip a drop of schnapps
In honor of the great good luck that favors you,
We know that when good fortune favors two such men,
It stands to reason we deserve it, too!”

This is an attitude of abundance. It leads to generosity. Scarcity, though, leads to hoarding and hating. Scarcity says, “Immigrants are stealing all the jobs!” Abundance says, “Immigration creates job by increasing the demand for goods and services.”

Scarcity says, “Equal pay for equal work is a terrible idea. If companies have to pay women more, they might pay men like me less.” Abundance says, “Everyone should be treated fairly. Besides, if women are paid as well as men, we men won’t have to worry about losing our jobs to lower-paid female employees.”

Scarcity says, “I wish that I had Jessie’s girl.” Abundance says, “There are plenty of fish in the sea.”

Some resources really are finite or limited. Take oil for instance. Fossil fuels are, by definition, a limited resource. The scarcity mentality leads to blood-for-oil wars. Abundance says, “Let’s explore new technologies for wind power and bio-fuels. Together we can do it. Let’s get to work.”

We can find this contrast in the Bible as well. Isaac and Rebecca have twin sons, Jacob and Esau. The twins begin their lives with rivalry, Jacob grasping the heel of first-born Esau. Unfortunately for these boys, both of their parents deal in scarcity. They have only so much favor to bestow, so Papa Isaac favors the hairy outdoorsman Esau, while Mama Rebecca pities the softer son and teaches him to cook a mean lentil stew.

Jacob views the world as a pie. His brother has clearly been given the larger piece of pie, for no other reason than that he was born a few minutes sooner. Because of those few minutes, Esau will receive the father’s blessing and the larger inheritance. Jacob will be expected to serve his slightly-older brother for the rest of his life.

Jacob is determined to increase his share of the pie by stealing his brother’s piece. He conspires with his mother to trick his father into bestowing on him the blessings of the first-born. You probably know the story. Jacob uses goatskins to deceive his father, who is nearly blind. When the mistake is discovered, Esau begs, “Father, bless me, too!”

Isaac’s response is remarkable. He says that he has already given the imposter everything – not just a large piece, but the whole pie. That makes me feel more sympathetic to Jacob. It means that his own father had no intention of blessing him! Jacob’s clever ruse with the goat skins really is the only way he can obtain his father’s blessing.

Esau is the one who snaps out of the scarcity mentality. Sobbing, he says, “Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me, too, my father!” Somehow, Isaac finds another blessing to bestow.

Hundreds of years later, the descendents of Isaac and Rebecca are crossing the desert to the promised land. God is still trying to teach them about abundance. When they cry for food, God produces manna. This strange bread-like substance descends from the sky every night. There is always enough for today. When some of the Israelites try to hoard the manna, it rots within a single day.

Fast forward several more centuries and we find Jesus echoing this sentiment in the prayer he teaches his disciples: “Give us this day our daily bread.”

In fact, throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches abundance. When his disciples tell him to send away the hungry crowds, Jesus answers casually, “Why don’t you just feed them?”

The disciples are stumped. With what are they expected to feed some 5,000 men with wives and children? The few coins in their bag will not go far. As for prepared food, they manage to come up with a few fish and a few loaves – only enough for a little boy’s lunch. Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes, feeds the crowd, and passes baskets to collect the leftovers. That’s abundance!

We don’t have the option of praying over a lunchbox and feeding thousands with it. We are forced to be creative. First, we must recognize that the scarcity mentality has failed us. In a world of rapidly depleting oil, creeping unemployment, hostile governments, and starving children, we cannot afford to view our resources as a pie. Instead we must view them as seeds that can be cultivated and multiplied until there is enough for all.

Scarcity says “We’re all going to die.” Abundance says “We can all live. Let’s get to work.”

Setting the record straight

2008-01-28T05:36:00.000-08:00

Evaluating election rumors

With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.

No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.

No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.

No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.

No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.

No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.

No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.

No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.

What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.

Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.

Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.

Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”

Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.

Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.

Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.

In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.

We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.

Never say no to yello Jello

2008-01-22T10:13:00.000-08:00

And other parenting tips

We are at the Picadilly on a Thursday night. When you have six children, you learn who has the 99 cent kid meals on which night. Shana Lee is our youngest at two years old, that age when children oscillate between non-verbal grunts and whole paragraphs. As we jostle through the cafeteria line, pushing our plastic trays and responding to multiple requests, little Shana Lee selects only one dish: a saucer of yellow Jello.

At the table, she sits on her knees in the chair because her thighs are too chunky for a high chair. She stabs the air with one finger, chanting, “Lello, lello, lello….”

Five children ago, I might have said no. As a veteran, I’ve learned that “no” is a loaded word. In the mouth of a toddler, “no” can be an insult, a line in the sand, an assertion of independence or a stalling tactic. But in the ears of a toddler, “no” is a stronger word than any other. It sounds like death and rejection, all rolled into one. If you have to use that word, it ought to be more important than yellow Jello.

Never say no, when you can say yes – that’s my philosophy. Yes also works with later, as in “Yes, you can have a popsicle after we put away these toys,” or “Yes, you can drive the car – as soon as you turn fifteen and obtain a learner’s license.” In the Picadilly case, it comes out something like, “After you eat some beef and corn and broccoli – then you can eat yellow Jello!”

Shana Lee does not share my reservations about the word “no.” She shouts it heartily, to be sure the cashier out front and the chef in back hear her objections. In case her mother fails to understand English, she punctuates the “no” with a sudden jab at her plate. The plate taps the dessert saucer, causing the golden cubes of Jello to shimmy.

Some parents are insulted by a child who shouts “no,” especially in public. Others regard a toddler’s “no” as a bully’s challenge that must be met in order to salvage parental pride and establish the proper pecking order. There exists an entire genre of writers who instruct parents how to win these battles, warning that your child will become something like a serial killer if ever you allow her to succeed in a single episode of parent-child combat.

My capacity to be insulted by two-year-olds has long since fallen victim to desensitization. Even when they scowl, point at me and pronounce, “You mean!” I only feel mild amusement. The smile that touches my lips sometimes fuels their anger, as it does my teenager when she smarts off and then catches me holding back a snicker. I can’t help it! I remember what it was like to be fourteen, and in that moment I’m just thinking, “Oh, my poor mother…”

I was a volatile teenager. To my chagrin, I remember it well. My mother bit her tongue, perhaps realizing that volatile teens need a safe place to rage and rail. Behind the angry words of a teen, there lies a message: “I am confused right now, but I know you’re someone I can trust.” Screaming teens are usually healthier than those who cannot verbalize their angst.

Teens and toddlers aren’t so different. A parent’s knee-jerk reaction to the rebellious toddler (or teen) is to teach her a lesson. Some will even say, “You have to break her will.” God forbid that I should ever break a child’s will. She might need it someday.

The child who says no to broccoli may someday be saying no to pot, unwanted sexual demands, or drag racing. Obviously, we want our children to say yes to broccoli and no to drugs.

What we forget is that life is filled with thousands of choices every day, from preferences to judgment calls. Not all of these decisions are as black and white as drugs or broccoli. Our task as parents is to teach our children (mostly through modeling) how to navigate those decisions in a manner that is harmless to others and true to themselves.

If I want my children to retain the language of “no,” I must be willing to let them practice it on me. If I want them to believe “no” has any power, I must allow it to stand sometimes. If I want my daughter to grow into a healthy adult who obeys her conscience, I must let her develop a conscience of her own. If I believe that healthy people question authority, I must acknowledge that, right now, the authority is me.

So does Shana Lee eat the yellow Jello first? That’s not a terrible idea. She is normally a vegetable lover, and I fail to see the value of a public broccoli battle. Jello is not filling, and she would probably eat the vegetables next. But Daddy is both more stubborn and more patient than Mama. He lifts her out of her seat and carries her out of the restaurant on his forearm.

Upon return, Shana Lee quietly cleans her plate, and then triumphantly chirps “Lello!”

“How’d you do it?” I ask in a conspiratorial whisper. This is later at home, when Shana Lee is sleeping in the crook of Daddy’s arm.

“Do what?”

“You know – the broccoli.”
“I didn’t do anything,” he says modestly. “I just took her outside for a little while.”

I smile in the darkness. “You broke the pattern,” I observe. That’s a new trick we’re learning. This sixth child of ours is nothing like the first five. In fact, we have found that every one of our children is such a distinct individual that parenting is a continual learning process.

Here are a few parenting tips from our experience:

Take your children to Sunday School. Tell them why it is important to learn about God. Make sure they understand the difference between miracles and mere Disney magic.

Count heads and buckle seat belts. Several children die each week in back-over accidents, usually in their own driveway. I count heads or call roll before I put the car in gear. If little ones are staying home, I’ll even use my cell phone to ask “Is Shana Lee still with you? Can you see her right now?” Automobile accidents are the leading cause of death for children under five.

Teach your children to swim. It’s fun, it’s healthy, and it just may save their lives. Drowning is the second leading cause of children’s deaths.

Potty training is over-rated. Children master toilet usage when they sufficiently mature – not when parents work enough and worry enough. Provide a child-size potty and a small dose of encouragement, then wait for nature to take its course.

You can conceive, birth and name your children, but you will never change fundamental aspects of their personality. Children are not blank slates that we can write upon. Love them as they are.

Never say no when you can say yes. The world will teach your child that she cannot have it all. Your task is to teach her to defy nay-sayers and reach for the stars.

copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

Who’s crying in their coffee now?

2008-01-15T17:39:00.000-08:00

Media attempt to manipulate the election fails – this time

Just before the New Hampshire primary, the media was abuzz with the claim that Hillary Clinton was coming unraveled. Multiple sources claimed she had been crying. One columnist called it a “weepfest” while others speculated that it may be a calculated attempt to “cry her way to the White House.”

Most pundits said she was finished. AP writers even claimed to have inside information that she was planning a pull-out. Every story implied she was crying over her loss in Iowa and impending loss in New Hampshire.

Being the curious sort, I went to You-Tube for the video clip. She was not even talking about Iowa or New Hampshire. She did express herself passionately. At one point her voice, hoarse from campaigning, quavered a bit.

But there was not a single tear shed. How does one have a “weepfest” without tears? Yet this moment of perceived weakness was recounted and embellished in the media as they gloated over Clinton’s supposed political burial.

As the New Hampshire primary votes were counted, it was interesting to watch the news reports roll into Yahoo News and CNN. As Clinton took the lead, the AP article was updated to state that Clinton and Obama were “dueling for New Hampshire” -- yet it continued to claim she was considering dropping out. As her lead grew, reporters kept claiming the race was neck-and-neck.

When the New Hampshire primary was over, CNN put it like this: “Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire.” Actually, Clinton earned a higher percentage of votes in New Hampshire than Obama earned in Iowa.

Seems to me the pundits and reporters were intent on taking the woman candidate down. They presented to the world a caricature of Hillary Clinton crying in her coffee while her campaign team whispered about withdrawal. They believed, like all good Republicans, that if you repeat a story over and over, it becomes true. They hoped that voters would not cast their ballot for a “loser.”

When Clinton won New Hampshire, the pundits could not say “We were wrong.” They certainly would not admit “We misled the public.” So they had to say, “Wow, look what we did! We made all those silly women voters feel so sorry for Hillary Clinton that they actually voted for her!”

I have some news for the news people: Your projections were wrong. Hillary Clinton was always popular in New Hampshire. The primary voters did not cast a sympathy vote. They cast their votes based on a concept called issues.

In fact, exit polls showed that the greatest Clinton voting gap was not between men and women. It was between women with jobs and women without jobs. Women who are currently looking for work voted for Senator Clinton in faith that she can turn the economy around and strengthen the job market.

Although female voters were significant, Clinton was also favored among certain other groups, including college-educated voters of both sexes and voters over forty.

Hillary Clinton is well-respected among party Democrats. Democrats are well aware of Senator Clinton’s work. We know better than to believe the biased media that paints her as super-liberal or overly divisive. Clinton has a history of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. She is a known quantity. She’s a safe bet. In states where primary voting is limited to the parties, a strong Clinton showing is expected.

Radio preachers and Republicans always lament “the liberal media.” I’d like to know where this so-called liberal media can be found? You can’t tune the radio without coming across a horde of ranting, slobbering right-wing extremists, yet it is nearly impossible to find a left-leaning speaker.

Television and the air waves are owned, dominated, and narrated by conservatives. They falsely divide Democratic voters into groups, claiming “Obama will win the black vote” and “Hillary will win the woman vote.” Neither blacks nor women vote as a block – and if they did, it would create a real problem. Over half of black voters happen to be women. A fair number of female voters happen to be black.

The American media is not liberal. What we have is a sexist media that will prognosticate endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s hair, cleavage, laughter, voice, tears, clothes – anything that can be used to remotely suggest that women are something ‘other.’

Commentators make sexist remarks without impunity. Imus was publicly reprimanded for making racist comments toward female athletes, but what if those players had been white? Chattanooga radio personalities make sexist comments about female athletes, lamenting that they cannot watch sexy, half-clad models on the court rather than muscular women who know how to handle a ball. Few listeners complain, so long as race is not mentioned.

You would never hear the pundits discuss how well Obama meets their stereotypical perceptions of bi-racial men -- Not the same way Clinton’s femininity has been picked apart. That’s not to say that racism is not a major barrier in American life and politics, but at least it has been consigned to the whisper campaign. Woman-hating is still a public and accepted American pastime. Unfortunately, the media is no exception.

Media Matters has launched a campaign against MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist remarks toward Clinton. His comments include referrals to Clinton as a "she devil," an “uppity woman” and a "strip-teaser." He called male Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Other times he has called Senator Clinton "Madame Defarge,” a Charles Dickens character who spent her time knitting a register of people she wanted dead. On four occasions Matthews has depicted Clinton as a woman who wants to smother a baby in a crib – the baby, of course, being Senator Obama.

Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh both refer to Senator Clinton as "Nurse Ratched." Nurse Ratched is the sadistic woman who terrorizes mental patients in “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

Intelligent voters make their choice based on the issues that are important to them, not media caricatures. I, for one, will vote my conscience.

copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/

Racism, sexism and representation

2008-01-08T14:16:00.000-08:00

Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008

Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.

If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.

If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”

If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.

If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.

If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.

If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.

Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.

I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.

The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.

The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.

On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.

Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.

Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”

Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.

Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”

Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.

Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”

We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.

Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.

What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

2008-01-08T14:15:00.001-08:00

Looking into the eyes of Jesus

2008-01-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

The real Christmas story

During the Christmas holidays, several news outlets carried an article about Rudy Giuliani reading the Christmas story at a children’s home in Harlem. The heart-warming headline was followed by a story explaining that he is following up on a fourteen year tradition. Every December Giuliani goes to the children’s home to read “Twas the Night before Christmas.”

Reading to children is a nice gesture. On Christmas Eve, my father-in-law read us all the Christmas story, and charged us to read it every year, even after he is gone from this earth. But he was not reading what Rudy Giuliani was reading. “Twas the Night before Christmas” is not the real Christmas story.

For those who have forgotten, the Christmas story is set in a little Israeli town called Bethlehem. It’s a musical, which opens with a young woman singing her joy at being chosen to bear a special child. It continues with a rousing number sung from the very heavens by a choir of angelic beings.

The amazing thing is that the Christmas child is no mere baby – he is the very incarnation of God. Our Creator, who cared for us and was rejected by us, sought to rectify the situation by becoming one of us. God could have come down here as a judge bent on revenge. Instead, the Divine took on human flesh, entering our world and our timeline as a helpless, bloody infant.

The Christmas story pre-dates “Twas the Night before Christmas” by a couple of thousand years. That’s not to say I don’t like Santa. He has rosy cheeks and a big, round belly that shakes when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly. What’s not to like? We can hardly blame Coca-Cola’s Santa Claus or his predecessor Saint Nicholas for the commercialization of the holiday.

Christmas commercialism extends beyond our own families; now we have every church, school, business and civic group raising money and toys to make sure that poor children have their share of commercialism, too. Don’t get me wrong; I like gifts. Baby Jesus received a few nice gifts that Christmas morning, and I think we ought to continue the tradition. Giving gifts to those who cannot buy their own is an especially caring idea – much better than racking your brain to find that special something for a person who already has everything.

Even stray cats receive a little Christmas love. A few weeks ago, my son spotted a little black kitten in the Ingles parking lot. We have a one-pet rule, which is already broken by the proliferation of semi-domesticated raccoons that occupy our back porch every evening. The answer was no – but it was Christmas, and the kitten looked so small and helpless… As my son approached, the cat darted into the culvert and looked back at us with golden eyes. She was right where she wanted to be.

I was moved when my sister called to tell me that someone was setting out cat food for “the little black kitten who lives in the culvert at Ingles.” I didn’t know anyone else knew about the kitten, but I soon learned that my mother and my sister both tried to catch it. Now I wonder just how many of my neighbors saw the Ingles kitten and longed to help. Christmas brings that out in us.

I also like the fragrances of evergreen and hot cider, the incessant ringing of the Salvation Army bell, and the holiday sales. I like my Aunt Odette’s traditional oyster dressing and thin gravy. I like that my brother flies down from Boston, crisp and cosmopolitan in his black wool coat. I like the Christmas music playing in the background, and the sparkle in the children’s eyes as they examine every ornament on Grandmother’s tree.

But sometimes in all the excitement, we forget about the baby. Even in our churches, where the choir has been practicing a Christmas cantata for months and the purple candles are lit by a different family each week, we can miss the point: Emmanuel, God with us. That baby was divinity wrapped in human flesh. A holy God, that we could never reach or touch, came down to intersect our lives.

Our response was not very good back then, either. The inn-keepers all turned the poor travelers away – all except for one, who had only enough compassion to point them toward a barn. A few shepherds showed up, and later an untold number of magi (the Bible never says three) arrived to honor the Christ-child. The rest of the world could not hear his thin cries above the hubbub of the crowd traveling home to pay their taxes. God came to earth, and learned there was no room for him here.

In fact, when the reigning king learned of his birth, all the newborns in town were slaughtered in an attempt to kill Jesus. The young parents took the baby and fled to a foreign land. If the Egyptians had deported them, we might not singing “Silent Night.”

Is there room for Christ today? In Cincinnati, Rev. Larry Kreps is under fire for providing food and shelter to illegal immigrants who were fleeing a raid. Some members of John Wesley United Methodist Church were uncomfortable with their church building being used to provide sanctuary for “illegals.” Kreps admits that he was conflicted when the desperate families appeared on his doorstep. "Of course we're coming into Christmas and the question: 'Is there room at the inn?'," Kreps said. "I'd rather be someone who makes room somewhere."

Many churches, food banks and private organizations have already faced this question. Some have answered with a resounding “No room.” They use citizenship as a qualifier for who can receive assistance. This is accomplished by requiring vouchers, social security cards, or other identifying information to prove citizenship.

Republicans and Libertarians who oppose welfare often state that it is the job of churches – not governments – to provide charitable help to those in need. As the government responds to public pressure to deport illegal immigrants, split up families, and deny even emergency medical assistance, Christian churches will have the opportunity to demonstrate the depth of their convictions. What we will do for the sick and the hungry among us? Will we look at the color of their skin and demand identification? Will we refuse to feed the hungry man who has no social security number? Will we turn away sick children because their parents were born in another land?

Whatever a person believes about government welfare, the responsibility of Christians is clear. Jesus warned us that “whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.” (Matthew 25:45) The families on the doorstep of John Wesley United Methodist Church looked up at Rev. Kreps with dark eyes filled with hope and fear. He smiled, because he knew he was looking into the eyes of Jesus.

Baptist drop-out vs. Mormon priest

2007-12-18T09:40:00.000-08:00

Religious battle for the Oval Office

Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.

Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.

Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.

Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!

Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.

Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.

Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.

While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”

As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.

Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.

You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.

According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”

As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?

Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.

As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.

Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.

When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.

Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."

What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.

The Golden Compass: Pointing kids to atheism?

2007-12-05T19:07:00.000-08:00

A really dangerous series of books has become popular. The first book is so innocuous that many people give it to their children. The tale begins with a couple of innocent kids exploring the simple goodness of the world around them. Soon they find out that humans are not alone in the universe, and that there are other realms we cannot see. They discover that their world is full of warring factions, evil spirits, armies of good and bad angels, conniving witches, greedy kings and corrupt religious establishments. The series reaches a furious climax with the characters committing the most heinous act you can imagine: They kill God.

Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.

Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.

League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”

Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.

But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”

What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”

The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.

For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.

Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.

Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.

Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.

Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.

There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.

Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.

These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.

Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”

Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.

The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.

The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.

The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.

Barbie poisoning

2007-11-23T16:44:00.000-08:00

I remember the year I eased the Barbie ban. It started with a lazy holiday shrug, and ended with a dozen naked plastic bodies strewn about the house.

I never bought a Barbie myself. Yet, a few years and a few children later, the Barbie population in our house surged beyond a hundred. Not that anyone has performed an actual census. You could take a sample count of a square-foot area of carpet and extrapolate from there. At one point I gathered them into three large plastic tubs and “lost” them in the basement. More Barbies quickly appeared to take their place.

I’ve overcome the impulse to rampage through the house forcing tiny shirts over those matted blond pony tails. In fact, I rarely notice the dolls anymore. I nudge wafer-thin naked bodies aside as I wade through the little girls’ bedroom in search of the last diaper in the house. I nonchalantly toss Barbies out of the shoe bin as I search for the other Tinkerbell tennis shoe.

The problems that bother me today are not the same ones that bothered me years ago. For example, I’ve grown accustomed to Barbie’s unattainable figure. At one time critics claimed the doll would be 5’-9” tall and 110 pounds if she were a real live woman.

In recent years, Mattel remodeled Barbie’s figure to look more like that of a teen. It’s not that they were concerned about the rates of anorexia on catwalks or in high schools, or the record number of adult women seeking breast augmentation. Rather, it was a response to the whims of fashion.

“In order for the hip-huggers to look right, Barbie needs to be more like a teen’s body,” Mattel spokesperson Lisa McKendall told Mother Jones magazine before the 1997 change. “The fashions teens wear now don’t fit properly on our current sculpting.”

That’s the nice thing about plastic bodies, I suppose. They can be re-sculpted to fit the clothes. Thus, Barbie’s breasts were pared down, her waist thickened a tad, and her hips made even narrower.

Barbie has become more diverse as well as (slightly) more realistic. The platinum blond hair has been varied with auburn, brown, black, and shades of gold. Various skin tones and even different facial features now adorn the dolls.

Before her recent conversion to a teen, Barbie ventured into careers that would make any feminist proud. She enjoyed stints as an astronaut, a doctor, a paleontologist, and a presidential candidate.

So what’s my beef with Barbie? I don’t think she’s very American. When 675,000 Barbie accessories were recalled due to lead paint applied in China, I picked up one those naked dolls and looked at the stamp on Barbie’s backside: Made in China.

Mattel, the maker of Barbie and owner of Fisher-Price, is the largest toy company in America. Lately Mattel has been in the news not because of a hot must-have Christmas toy, but because of tainted toys made in China.

So far, Mattel has paid $975,000 this year alone for failing to report safety hazards and recalled over ten million toys. The safety hazard, typically consist of lead paint or dangerous magnets.

One of the recalled toys is Barbie’s dog Tanner. Tanner eats and poops plastic-coated metal dog biscuits. Barbie picks them up with her magnetic pooper-scooper and deposits them into the trash can -- which is also the dog biscuit dispenser!

As if recycled poop biscuits were not enough reason to recall Tanner, the tiny magnets are a major safety hazard to young children who swallow them. When two or more magnets become lodged in different sections of the intestines, they may stick together to the point of perforating of the intestines. The recalled toys, including Barbie’s biscuit-eating dog, have frequently been of Chinese manufacture.

Barbie is not alone. Approximately 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. One reason Chinese goods dominate the world market is that the Chinese government artificially devalues its currency to make its products the cheapest in the world. As China takes over whole industries, local manufacturers either outsource to China or go out of business, making those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods.

Just imagine the cycle. Every Christmas, American parents fill their children’s stockings with cheap plastic junk made in China. Meanwhile, many of these same parents are losing their jobs because they cannot compete with the cheap labor of China.

Outsourcing causes inflation-adjusted wages to fall here in America, further ensuring that Americans can only afford to put cheap plastic toys under the tree. Factor in the lead poisoning of our children -- which can lead to lower IQs, physical and mental disabilities and decreased career success long-term -- and you have the makings of a very ugly downward spiral.

What’s the antidote to Barbie poisoning? It starts with buying American-made toys. If “buy American” sounds passé, it is not just because Chinese toy makers have lulled us into a lead-paint stupor. The fact is that American-made goods are more expensive. A quick search online reveals that natural toys made with wood and non-toxic paint cost several times what we expect to pay for cheap Chinese junk.

It is time to remember the old adage, “You get what you pay for.” Opt for fewer gifts of higher quality. In the long run, quality gifts have more character and last longer.

The U.S. government has a responsibility to test every child in America for lead poisoning. There are now so many tainted toys in so many millions of homes, that recalls cannot possibly be effective in getting the lead out of America’s nurseries.
Testing is urgent because lead poisoning is cumulative. The longer the duration of the exposure, the greater the brain damage will be. There are medications to treat lead poisoning, but the most important aspect of treatment is removing the lead source.

Health departments, schools and daycares should provide the venue for free screening to determine which children need treatment and which toy boxes need to be purged. Mattel and other violators should pay for the cost of the testing and treatment.

Finally, the importers must be held accountable. We cannot regulate Chinese companies, but we can regulate Mattel. Importers should be required to prove their goods meet the same standards as American-made goods.

Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not have access to Chinese manufacturers, accountability must happen within our borders. Importers should be required to submit to independent testing on a regular basis. The CPSC, which has been rendered somewhat toothless by Republican administrations, should have authority (and funding) to drop in at any store or distribution point, and test at random. The CPSC should impose penalties that serve not only to punish and deter, but also to clean up and compensate for violations.

A side benefit of import compliance is that it will somewhat neutralize the cost differential between imports and domestic goods. Apparently lead paint, antifreeze, and other toxic ingredients are cheap and plentiful in China. Currently American manufacturers must spend more than Chinese manufacturers to comply with safety regulations. Holding importers to the same standards will level the playing field.

When China is no longer so much cheaper, manufacturing jobs will return to America. Perhaps even Barbie will come home.

It's called democracy

2007-11-21T12:18:00.000-08:00

A group of men sat down to fire off a letter to some politicians who were overstepping their bounds. Searching for the perfect phrase, Benjamin Franklin borrowed the words of his Italian friend, Phillip Mazzei. He wrote, “All men are created equal.”

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.

Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?

Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.

The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.

Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.

We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.

Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.

They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.

The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.

As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.

For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.

The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.

You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”

It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.

But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.

It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.

It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.

Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.

Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.

We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.

Say no to the GREAT big tax

2007-11-14T18:09:00.000-08:00

Georgia GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson was upset when he saw his property tax bills, which totaled over $13,000. Richardson has a plan to avoid paying those taxes. He calls it the GREAT Plan, which stands for Georgia Repeals Every Ad Valorem Tax. (No one said he could spell.)

Currently the county collects ad valorem taxes on the value of our homes, cars, boats, barns, trailers and other big valuables. Those who drive a BMW and live in a mansion pay more than those who drive a Geo and own a 3-bedroom house. These taxes support our local government and schools.

Richardson’s proposal strips these funds from the county. Schools and local governments will have to go to Atlanta for every dime. The state will raise the funds through a sales tax on everything imaginable. Not only will we pay sales tax for fuel, clothes, cars and houses. We will also pay tax on bread, milk, medicine, and doctor visits.

The additional sales tax will cost Georgia businesses their competitive edge. Shops located near state lines will be impacted first. The revenue we currently enjoy from Tennessee, Alabama and Florida residents will evaporate.

Even Georgians will try not to buy here. No one wants to pay more when they can simply cross the state line (or log onto the Internet) to save money. People with means will buy everything from auto parts to clothing from out-of-state companies. The poor, who must buy locally, will be cut deepest by Richardson’s scheme.

As sales fall, the legislature must raise the tax rate to replace the lost revenue. As the tax rises, sales will fall more, and the tax must be raised higher – which will cause sales to fall even more, and so on. It’s a death spiral for the economy.

Even if the legislature holds the state sales tax at 4%, we end up paying a much higher tax because each item is taxed multiple times as it moves through manufacturing and distribution channels. You see, goods for resale will no longer be tax exempt.

The GREAT big tax deals Georgia manufacturers a devastating blow. Manufacturers who pay sales tax for raw materials and supplies cannot possibly compete with untaxed manufacturers in other states. Many will limp across state lines and reestablish business there – leaving behind empty buildings and thousands upon thousands of lost jobs.

Businesses that remain in Georgia will source their goods from manufacturers in other states, unless Richardson figures out how to tax interstate commerce. This will further boost the economy in surrounding states and further depress Georgia.

We can speculate that Richardson will issue exemptions to companies who have his favor. He is already wavering on whether raw materials will be taxed. Last week, Richardson announced that there would be a cap on sales tax charged for business-to-business transactions. The cap may be anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 per vendor. The caps will give large Georgia businesses an edge over their smaller competitors, since smaller businesses pay sales tax on every purchase.

Expect to see sales tax incentives offered to foreign manufacturers as enticement to locate in Georgia, selling out our heritage to other countries.

Lt. Governor Casey Cagle (a Republican who is actually conservative) opposes the hare-brained GREAT tax. “This is not a tax cut,” Cagle recently noted.

In fact, it is a tax increase. Richardson is already claiming that there will be a 10% surplus over current tax revenues. That means his plan is a 10% tax increase.

Cagle says, “It is a tax shift, as it has been represented. And so the question becomes now, who are you shifting the tax burden to?”

The GREAT big tax shifts the burden onto the elderly, renters, college students, and small and medium businesses. It provides relief for millionaire property owners like Richardson and for large businesses.

Under the current tax system, the elderly are exempt from the school tax, reducing their tax burden to less than a third. Under the GREAT big tax, there are no tax breaks for the elderly. They shoulder an unfair proportion of the taxes on prescriptions and doctor visits. They also pay taxes on bread, milk and lawn services.

Renters also bear an unfair burden. Renters currently pay property taxes through their rent. Although the GREAT tax supposedly eliminates property taxes, out-of-state renters will pay a property tax of up to $2,000. Richardson disingenuously calls it a “fee” rather than a tax.

The fee-payers may include thousands of college students. This will discourage out-of-state students from enrolling in our colleges. Since these students pay higher tuition rates, the loss of this income could devastate our colleges.

Cagle goes on, “And it appears, under the current proposal, that there would be winners and losers in that structure, but more importantly, potentially it would put Georgia in a competitive disadvantage for businesses versus other states. And that gives me great heartburn.”

Cagle says businesses tell him the GREAT plan will increase their tax burdens at least 25%, and as much as 62%. That’s a very steep rate of inflation which will be passed along to Georgia consumers.

When you penalize consumers for buying Georgia goods, they respond by spending less money in this state. The economy stagnates, and jobs are lost. Bankruptcy courts will be bloated. Houses will be foreclosed on every street. People with education and opportunity will leave Georgia to find work elsewhere – leaving behind only the richest Georgians, and a class of working poor. This is the vision some Republicans have for Georgia.

There is a better solution for rising property taxes. According to Alan Essig, executive director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, property taxes for local governments have been essentially flat (as a percentage of income) for the last fifteen years. There is one exception: school districts’ tax rates have grown rapidly.

The school tax increase goes right back to Republican policies. Over the past several years, Republicans have robbed Georgia schools of over $1.5 billion. In areas where education is valued, local school boards respond to the cuts by requiring more from local property owners. As Essig says, “The locals have been reacting to what the state has done.”

The solution to property tax growth is quite simple: Make the Republicans give the school money back to the schools. Every dollar our schools receive from the state budget is a dollar that we do not have to pay in property taxes.

The GREAT big tax is a potential disaster for the elderly, renters, small and medium businesses, Georgia colleges, and employees. The good news is: We can stop it! The GREAT big tax cannot be implemented without an amendment to the Georgia Constitution. Amendments require approval by two thirds of the General Assembly, and then a majority vote at the next election.

If our legislators are foolish enough to pass this amendment, Georgia citizens can still vote NO to the GREAT big tax – and then vote out the legislators who favored it.

GREAT big sales tax, GREAT big power grab

2007-11-05T06:05:00.000-08:00

Remember when Republicans were against big government? At least that’s what they said. Georgia GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson is revising our tax system to centralize power into the hands of Big Government. This power grab will be funded by a high sales tax that will drive business out of Georgia, hike up the cost of living, and tax the daylights out of everything that breathes.

This week, I’ll explain how Richardson’s plan hurts taxpayers and local governments. Next week, we’ll look at the effect on Georgia businesses and unemployment.

Richardson calls it the GREAT Plan: Georgia’s Repeal of Every Ad valorem Tax. (The acronym should be GREAVT, but perhaps that sounded too much like grave or gravy.) He says he will make it illegal for counties to tax property, automobiles and boats. He says he will make up for lost county revenue with sales tax. Of course, that’s not mathematically possible without either raising the sales tax rate outright (which he claims he won’t do) or hiding additional sales taxes other places. By focusing on the repeal, Richardson hopes you won’t notice his funny math, and all the tax he’s adding elsewhere.

Richardson wants to expand the sales tax to cover anything that can be bought and sold, including services. Imagine paying sales tax for groceries, prescriptions, yard work, and even doctor visits.

But that’s still not enough revenue. In order to replace $9 billion in property taxes, Richardson must squeeze an extra $1,000 out of every man, woman and child in Georgia. At 4%, each Georgian would have to spend $25,000 in services per year. It just won’t work. Georgians only average $24,000 total spending per person. They can’t spend more on services alone than they spend altogether.

Rest assured, Richardson is not willing to give up one dollar of tax revenue. Georgia’s big government still has the same bills as before, and Richardson claims that local schools and municipalities will not be short-changed by the new system. All of the funds to operate Georgia will still come from taxes – that is, from us taxpayers.

Richardson has creative ways to extract these funds from you: multiple sales tax charges on every item. Currently the consumer pays sales tax just once, when an item is purchased at the store. Under the GREAT big tax, business-to-business transactions and raw materials will also be charged. Although he claims he will hold the line at 4%, the sales tax is much higher than that when you factor in the multiple instances of taxation before a product reaches the end user.

Imagine, for example, a loaf of bread. Under the GREAT big tax, bread and other groceries are no longer exempt from sales tax. Neither are raw materials or freight. The bakery will pay sales tax on the flour, the yeast, the packaging, and also the freight to get those goods to the bakery. Then the retail store will pay sales tax when purchasing the bread from the bakery. The same loaf of bread will get taxed at least three times. With most products, there are even more distribution and manufacturing layers.

All of this additional sales tax ends up tacked onto the final retail price – and taxed again at the checkout. Business-to-business taxes do not escalate in a straight line because of the tax on tax. When a product goes through several steps to reach the consumer (as nearly everything does), a so-called 4% sales tax may cost the consumer 20%.

Still other new taxes are concealed in the loaf of bread. What about the sales tax paid through the marketing firm who wrote the advertising campaign, and the sales tax paid through the newspaper who ran the ad? The store will also pay sales tax through the companies that clean its rugs and trim its lawn. All of these additional taxes end up in the price of a loaf of bread, where they are taxed yet again.

GOP House Speaker Glenn Richardson may not be trying to bankrupt consumers. His real goal is to take the reigns from local government. By eliminating property taxes, the Speaker can micro-manage every county.

Property taxes are paid to the county and used in the county. Property taxes support our local government and our county schools. Under the new plan, counties and municipalities lose the ability to set, collect, and disburse property tax monies. Instead, the lost revenue will be replaced with sales tax collected by the state. And guess who’s holding the purse strings? The Georgia House of Representatives, which Richardson rules with an iron fist.

In other words, Richardson wants to eliminate a tax which is locally controlled and replace it with a tax that he controls. The state gives up nothing, and gains control over everything. Counties, municipalities, and schools will have to go begging to the General Assembly for every dime. The goal of local elections will be finding Richardson cronies who can stay on the volatile Speaker’s sunny side.

The GREAT big sales tax does not eliminate programs like SPLOST which add local sales tax on top of state sales tax. In fact, Richardson wants to expand local option sales tax so that counties can use the money for maintenance and operation. Now, why would counties need operating funds if he were really going to make sure that local governments receive the same funds as before?

It is easy to see what will happen. As local governments and schools cower at Richardson’s feet begging for funds, they will be forced to cover shortfalls. Since property taxes will be illegal, local governments will demand even more local option sales tax on the top of the GREAT big sales tax. By this time consumers may not be able to afford a cup of coffee.

Understandably, local government officials all over Georgia oppose the plan. In fact, many of them dispute the figures. Tom Gehl, spokesman for the Georgia Municipal Association put it like this, “The speaker has a right to his own opinion, but he doesn’t have a right to his own math.”

Citizens should oppose the plan, too. We may not agree with every decision that our local officials make, but we elected them. They work right here in our county, where we can drop in to talk to them about problems, stand up to speak at a local public meeting, and tell our friends to help us boot them out if they do us wrong. That is more difficult to do with state officials who have a broad voter base, work in Atlanta and often operate beneath a veil of secrecy.

State Reps Ron Forster (Catoosa/Whitfield) and Martin Scott (Dade/Walker) seem to be caught in the Speaker’s spell. State Senator Jeff Mullis is more lucid, even citing the local control issue -- yet he also praises Richardson for introducing the proposal.

The GREAT big sales tax is a great big disaster looming in Georgia’s future. It will strip local sovereignty and put entirely too much political power in the hands on one man.

Stay tuned next week to learn how Richardson’s GREAT big tax will result in a mass exodus of Georgia jobs.

Jeannie Babb Taylor

Local government runs over produce stand

2007-11-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago, Catoosa County residents Brenda and Ronnie Norris had a bumper crop of tomatoes. In a stroke of inspiration, Brenda set up two tables underneath a big shade tree on the corner of Three Notch and Poplar Springs.

“Do you have any squash?” customers would ask. Brenda would run over to the garden to see what she could find. “What about okra? Can you get any okra?”

Soon Shadetree Produce became a frequent stop for many Catoosa and Walker residents who pass that way. Ikey Land helped the Norrises construct a shelter of PVC and tarps. Ronnie Norris purchased the fruits and vegetables they could not grow, and the little business developed a loyal customer base. Many Shadetree customers are elderly and depend on the produce stand for fresh foods close to home.

Then someone decided that Shadetree Produce was in the way. The Norrises say they were informed by the county that a turn lane would be installed along the right-of-way in about three weeks. One week later, the roadwork team appeared, paving an 18-foot turn lane right over their driveway.

Ronnie Norris was at the market when they came, buying $700 of produce. All of it spoiled. In fact, the Norrises say they lost approximately $6,000 in revenue while the county was installing the turn lane. Brenda says the county would not let customers stop at the produce stand. “They were just waving them past.”

The workers left behind a black stretch of asphalt where the parking lot had been, with a guard rail nearly blocking entrance to the produce stand. “People started coming by, asking ‘Who’d you make mad?’” Brenda recalls.

Eva Hatcher, who lives on Poplar Springs Road and works at the produce stand, says that traffic is much worse now than before the turn lane was installed. Another possibility existed for the county – that of buying a nearby house that is for sale directly across from the Poplar Springs and Three Notch intersection, and accessing the new Heritage schools through that piece of property. This is a natural place to install a traffic light.

This is just another tale of how the county government walks on those it ought to serve. Rather than working with the Norrises to complete the turn lane without damaging their income, the county simply bulldozed them. They were not consulted – just as the fire departments were not consulted before Catoosa County Commissioners voted to advertise for a consolidated fire chief. They were merely informed, and not in time to react.

Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story for Ronnie and Brenda Norris. Shadetree Produce customers rallied to their support, encouraging them to revamp rather than close the stand. They took down the old PVC-and-tarp structure, and bought a metal building to replace it. Bobby Swanson Construction made them a good deal for construction of a small parking lot. Johnny Coots and Charles Simerley provided doors and windows for the new building.

Commissioner Bobby Winters, a frequent customer, brought in gravel to set the new building, and put in a Poplar Springs access drive. But when Ronnie suggested the Catoosa County should reimburse Shadetree for part of the business loss and cost of moving, he says Winters smiled and asked, “How would you prove it?”

Shadetree Produce is open seven days a week. Pumpkins are of course in season, as well as a variety of crunchy apples trucked in from Virginia due to the Georgia drought. They also have oranges and honeybells, which are a type of tangelo. The bell peppers were especially good last week. I served mine stuffed with corn chips, ground beef, tomato paste and rice, topped with parmesan and croutons.

Take some time this week to stop at a local produce stand. Eat in a restaurant where the name is not printed on the napkins, and where the woman who sets your plate on the table is likely the owner, or at least a cousin or a friend.

Buy a gift at a locally-owned shop, where the owner selects every item and places it lovingly on the shelf. The extra dollar you may spend builds up your county and makes it a better place to live. When we buy locally, we support our friends and neighbors instead of shifting jobs to underpaid workers in foreign countries. When we support local businesses, we are really giving back to ourselves.

Govenor's Cup inhibits SAT participation

2007-10-28T17:00:00.000-07:00

The Governor’s Cup is empty. In 2003, newly elected Governor Sonny Perdue instituted the “Governor’s Cup Challenge” to reward schools for bringing up the average senior SAT score. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise to bring Georgia’s average SAT up from “dead last.”

What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.

Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.

In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.

Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.

In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.

The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.

Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.

A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”

Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.

One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.

In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.

The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.

So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.

The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.

This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.

Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.

A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.

Bush wants money for Iraq occupation, not America’s children

2007-10-10T12:29:00.000-07:00

Last Wednesday, President Bush demanded another $189 billion to extend his occupation of Iraq for another year – even as he stripped low-income children of their healthcare. The cost of funding an expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced s-chip) is only $12 billion per year, less than a tenth the money he wants for Iraq.

“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.

The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”

Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.

In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.

Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.

Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.

90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”

The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.

If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.

Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?

In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?

It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.

Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.

Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.

What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.

According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?

The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.

For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.

Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.

The problem with breastfeeding

2007-10-01T08:50:00.000-07:00

What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.

Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.

Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?

Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)

Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.

It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.

Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.

Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”

At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.

The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.

Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.

In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.

Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.

As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.

American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.

American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.

Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.

Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.

The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.

We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.

A Christian and a Democrat

2007-09-27T13:09:00.000-07:00

“I can’t vote for a Democrat,” a man once told me. “I’m a Christian.” He spoke these two labels as if they were a set of antonyms. He could not grasp my attempts to explain that one label referred to a religion while the other referred to a political party. Some preacher had told him that all Christians are Republicans, and he had accepted this factoid without thinking.

I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.

He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.

“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”

He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”

“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.

The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)

Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”

As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.

A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.

If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.

The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.

Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.

It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.

Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.

According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.

Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.

The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.

Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.

Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.

Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?

My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.

An open letter to Christian pastors

2007-09-19T14:26:00.000-07:00

Pastors, have you ever preached a sermon against domestic violence? Odds are, you haven’t. I’ve listened to approximately 4,000 sermons and have yet to hear a pastor condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.

Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.

Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”

Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.

The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.

Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.

Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.

T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.

Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse. In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband. Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”

Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.

One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.

In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.

Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation. He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage: The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding. As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband: “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.

Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.

Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.

Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.

Frequently asked questions

2007-09-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

The most exciting facet of writing a weekly column is receiving reader questions and comments. Each piece goes out to tens of thousands, and then the columnist waits to see who will answer. Some questions tend to be repeated, and thus call for a public response.

Several readers have sent emails asking, “How can you be a Christian and a feminist?” That’s an easy one. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus, the Son of God, laid down his life for humankind. A feminist is someone who believes that women are human. How can any Christian woman not be a feminist?

Other readers have asked, “Why do you hate George Bush?” The emotion that causes me to point at the Constitution with a look of panic in my eyes in not hatred. It is, in fact, love. Only those who love liberty cry when it is torn asunder in the name of fear. The rest of America shrugs and says, “It was only a Muslim who lost his rights. No one is spying on me or falsely arresting me or my friends, so who cares?” How quickly we forget the lessons of history!

Consider the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

The real question is: When did the public forget the importance of holding our government accountable? Americans have been sold a lie. We have been told that we must agree with the occupation of Iraq, or else we cannot support our troops. Christians in particular are taught that we must only “pray for the President” rather than voicing our dissent. Nobody suggested such a tactic during Bill Clinton’s administration. These days, Bushies call those who disagree with Republican policy traitors or even terrorists. When open dissent is squelched, liberty is only an illusion.

Since last week’s paper was published, a handful of pit bull apologists from around the U.S. have sent a small torrent of emails accusing me of prejudice against their favorite pets. These dog-owners claim we should not judge their pets by their breed, just as we should not judge people by their skin color. My piece took a hard-line approach against all aggressive dogs. If a cocker spaniel or a pit bull bit my child, either dog would meet the same fate. The child would not. Large dog attacks are far more likely to result in death, maiming or disfigurement. Among large dogs, some breeds are more likely to attack than others. For this reason, it makes sense to keep tabs on which breeds have a greater tendency to attack the weak and defenseless. Studies implicate the pit bull as the number one killer dog.

Just since I wrote the piece on killer dogs, several more people have been attacked by pit bulls. A woman in California was attacked by a neighbor’s pit bull in her own garage. The dog wanted the baby boy in her arms. In desperation, she hid the baby in a trash can while she fended off the beast. The pit bull lunged at the trash can and knocked the baby onto the floor. The brave mother threw herself between the pit bull and the baby, so that the vicious animal clamped onto her arms rather than the baby’s head. Nearby construction workers responded to the woman’s screams and beat the dog with their tools until it ran away. They saved the mother’s life, but she still may lose the use of her arms. So much for pit bull lovers’ claims that irresponsible mothers are to blame for attacks on children!

On the first of this month, a six-year-old boy in Dallas was mauled to death by the family pit bull. On Saturday, another six-year-old boy was attacked by another pit bull. His older sister was also scratched and bitten as she tried to rescue him. Elsewhere, mail carriers, police officers and other professionals continue to face danger from aggressive dogs in their line of work. Police officers frequently shoot pit bulls in self defense.

Dogs are not people, and therefore charges of breed prejudice hardly carry the weight of racism or sexism charges. I like dogs, so long as they keep their teeth, claws, barking, and defecating to themselves. I like tigers, too, but I hope none of my neighbors decide to tame a tiger, call it a pet, and tie on a rope in their back yard.

Some readers express great relief at the common sense presented in my column, and want to know “Where have you been all my life?” Before I began the column, some had worried that the local paper was not taking a neutral stance toward politics. The fact is that the paper just did not have an independent weekly columnist who was left-leaning. I am thrilled to be here now, voicing a balancing opinion.

And finally, to all those who begin their letters with “I disagree,” I invite you to continue disagreeing and continue sending your responses via email. I write to address current topics, to expose inconsistencies in our culture, to hold the government accountable, and to facilitate public dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree, I have succeeded in bringing the subject to your attention and presenting a different angle. You are thinking about these issues, and thus the column is a success. Keep reading, keep thinking, and keep responding.

Animals for the ethical treatment of people

2007-09-06T13:04:00.000-07:00

Earlier this summer, a 5-year-old child with Down’s syndrome was reported missing. Hours later her body was found. Authorities charged the girl’s mother with involuntary manslaughter. But wait – this little girl was not killed by her mother. She was mauled to death by the neighbor’s dog.

With Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal fresh in the news, animal activists are pushing for laws to protect pit bulls. But what about laws to protect humans – especially children – from vicious animals?

PETA wants people to treat animals better. Where is AETP, Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People? Is there a Lassie or a Benji out there somewhere who will advocate for children? We need such an advocate, because the human public seems more interested in protecting the vicious dogs.

In Paducah a six-year-old boy was mauled by a neighbor’s Alaskan malamute. The boy is recovering. Community response? People fought over the dog, begging authorities not to euthanize it. They said he deserved “a second chance.” A second chance to do what? Make a clean kill next time?

About the same time, a child in Niagara Falls, New York was bitten in the face by a repeat offender. The shepherd mix had bitten another child just two weeks earlier.

The public did respond when Kaitlyn Hassard’s retriever choked her to death with her neck scarf: Over 300 people wanted to adopt the killer dog. If it had been the 6-year-old girl in trouble, how many families would have begged to adopt her? (Hint: Ask social services how many “older” children wait indefinitely on their adoption lists.) Many pet-owners were outraged that the dog was put up for adoption at all, insisting that the girl’s mother was at fault. “She should have never taken her eyes off her that kid for a minute.” Of course, they say the same thing every time a pit bull tears a little child’s face off.

Dozens of news stories each year report on small children disfigured or fatally mauled by such dogs. Invariably, the owner states the behavior was “totally out of character” and the dog was always gentle till now. Does it not occur to these pet owners that “out of character” behavior is very much in character for certain animals?

Pit bulls are not teddy bears, after all. These are large creatures with sharp fangs set in powerful jaws. They are bred to kill. Every fiber of their being is designer-engineered to clamp down on a throat and shake until the victim stops struggling. You can train some of them to act nice most of the time – much as a lion can be tamed – but the killer instinct is there, just beneath the surface, like a trip wire waiting to be triggered.

After the attack comes the tug-of-war between officials who want to destroy the dangerous animal, and the bleeding heart animal lovers who want to “rehabilitate” the animal or (more likely) proclaim its innocence while blaming the mother. If a dog ever harms one of my sweet babies, this will not be an issue. Instead, the two groups can haggle over disposal of the remains.

Ontario banned ownership of pit bulls after a toddler was attacked by three pit bulls that leapt a fence to tear into him. The rescue required half a dozen people and four of them, including both the boy’s parents, required hospitalization. The ban made sense to the province’s attorney general Michael Bryant, who said, “Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool, maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”

Some counties and one state (Virginia) actually have a vicious dog registry. If officials know where these dangerous animals are, why not destroy them before they can hurt anyone? These animals are desired because of their killer tendencies, not in spite of them. That’s why breeders breed them, that’s why people buy them, and we ought to just admit it.

Absurdly, families increasingly adopt a vicious breed and then domesticate it to play with children. According to a study by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, just three breeds are responsible for 74% of all attacks. Pit bulls top the list, followed by rottweilers, then German shepherds. The Centers for Disease Control says pit bulls kill three times as many people as rottweilers.

In over two-thirds of the cases Clifton studied, the very first known dangerous behavior of the animal proved to be fatal or life-threatening. Dogs bite 4.7 million people annually, and 800,000 dog bites require medical attention. In fact, dogs are the second leading cause of emergency room visits by children.

The majority of offending dogs bite someone at their own home or another familiar place. These dogs aren’t defending the home place, either; 77% are attacking their human family or close friends of the family.

According to the National Canine Research Council, fatal dog attacks are on the rise, having doubled in the last five years. Meanwhile, America seems to have lost all reason when it comes to pets. Dear Abby recently had to advise a reader that, no, it is not okay to shut your 2-year-old alone in a room so the boyfriend’s aggressive dog “Crusher” can roam the house. People have birthday parties for their dogs. They buy RVs so they can take them on vacation, and dress them in Halloween costumes. Some dogs have better health insurance than Georgia’s children.

In local papers, the pet food scandal gets far more press than the proliferation of lead in children’s toys and vinyl lunch boxes. Baby formula recalls are rarely mentioned in the paper, even when deadly bacteria is discovered in cans of fake breast milk. Week after week, we read how China is poisoning our pets. Does anyone care that they are poisoning our children? How easily we shrug off a host of companies committing fraud against children, including corporate giants like toxic-toy Mattel, and the formula-maker Nestle who is responsible for killing a million babies per year. Apparently, they can take our children. Just don’t hurt Fido!

Getting back to Michael Vick, it is interesting to note the extreme responses of the public, the press and even the NFL. Sure, his actions were heinous. But is dog-fighting really a worse crime than assaulting and stalking women? So many professional athletes have been accused of domestic violence that we have long since lost count. Their coaches have been known to bail them out of jail and put them on the field the very next day.

Bobby Chinourd – one of the few athletes actually to be convicted – was sentenced to just one year for terrorizing and threatening to kill his wife. The judge let him serve the sentence in 3-month increments during the off-season, not wanting to limit his time on the field. When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a woman in a hotel, he received a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support. Even Rae Curruth, who paid someone to kill his pregnant girlfriend, did not elicit the public outrage aimed at Michael Vick.

When Hawaii quarterback Raphel Cherry was convicted of strangling his wife, head coach June Jones responded, "It just makes you sick for him and his family.” What makes me sick is that athletes who mistreat women garner more sympathy than an athlete who mistreated dogs. Our culture values animals more highly than women and children.

I like dogs. My family still laughs at how I spent one childhood summer living in a cardboard box on the porch because I didn’t want to be away from my mutt Old Yellar. I cried for two days when Old Yellar was struck by a car and died, and I have cried over several dogs since then. I won’t argue with the concept that all dogs go to heaven. I just think some should go sooner than others.

GOP logic: fact or fiction?

2007-08-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

Have you heard the latest GOP junk science report? Having exhausted their fury for the termite, industry-backed pseudo-scientists are now laying blame for climate change on the arctic moose. They claim that his belching is responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas. He’s such a global terror, they assert, that we need not give another thought to the CO2 put out by factories and power plants.

There are a few problems with this claim. First, the test was based on belching figures calculated from cows, not moose. No one has studied the digestive patterns of moose, because their numbers have dwindled so sharply that there are not many moose left to study. In fact, the number of grazing animals has been declining for quite some time, and quite sharply. Long ago the mammoth became extinct, and then the buffalo population was obliterated with westward expansion. The moose population is down 90%. Yet global warming is accelerating even as these animals disappear. Obviously grazing animals are not the cause of climate change.

The truth is that grazing animals reduce greenhouse gases in a number of ways. First, grazing stimulates more plant growth. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere, storing the carbon and releasing the oxygen; therefore, grazing is a good thing for the earth.

Second, grazing animals do not add new carbon to the earth. All greenhouse gasses released by grazing animals came from vegetation, which in turn came from the atmosphere. Even if 100% of the greenhouse components consumed by grazing were released back into the atmosphere, this would be a sum zero game. The same CO2 would simply be cycled round and round, with no net increase of greenhouse gas.

Third, grazing animals store carbon. In reality, the return of CO2 to the atmosphere is not as efficient described above. A portion of the greenhouse components are stored in the animal bones. Some is also trapped in the animal dung.

The dung itself has beneficial effects, too. It acts as a fertilizer, promoting additional plant growth. Another portion of the dung remains in the soil for long periods of time, sequestering some greenhouse components.

As grazing animals disappear from the earth, more plant matter is left to decay. Decaying plant matter releases carbon back into the atmosphere, creating greenhouse gasses. Thus, any creature that consumes currently growing biomass is fighting rather than augmenting global warming.

We must turn away from pointing fingers at the belching arctic moose or even the dastardly termite mound as a way of explaining climate change. Instead, we must look in the mirror. There are only two mechanisms that significantly increase the greenhouse effect: Changes to stored carbon products and changes to the total amount of living plant material.

We add to the greenhouse effect when we burn carbon products that have been previously sequestered. For example, when we burn fossil fuels such as a coal or oil, we are releasing greenhouses gasses that had been sequestered for untold ages. On the flip side, when carbon products are sequestered and stored as in the grazing animal example above, then greenhouse effects are reduced.

Changes to the total amount of living plant material also affect greenhouse gasses. Living plants release oxygen into the atmosphere, which pumps up the ozone layer and offsets greenhouse gas. Deforestation has a tremendous impact, particularly when the trees are burned. Spraying pesticides along the highways and power lines kills plants and then leaves them there to rot. This is a double-whammy, because it takes out carbon-storing, oxygen-producing biomass, and then releases greenhouse gasses as the weeds rot. We can also imagine that this is not good for the insects that eat the grass, the birds and bats that eat the insects, and so on. Some have speculated that highway and power line pesticides may do more harm to the environment than a good-sized coal burning power plant.

To put it even more simply, storing carbon reduces the greenhouse effect, and releasing stored carbon increases the greenhouse effect. In spite of a few belches, the net actions of the arctic moose result in storing carbon, not releasing stored carbon.

Since industrialization, the delicate balance of carbon releasing and carbon storing has been out of kilter. Each year humans create more greenhouse gasses through energy production and industry, while destroying biomass via deforestation and pesticides. We are already paying a price for our actions. Natural catastrophes are occurring in almost biblical frequency and proportions. Scientists tell us this is only the beginning. Earlier this year, 2,000 scientists convened to present the expected trajectory of climate change and its catastrophic effects – including coastal flooding, agricultural failure and stronger hurricanes and tropical storms.

As usual, Republican politicians refuse to let the facts get in their way. Georgia legislators held a hearing just last week titled “Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?” The very name of the conference suggests the sort of head-in-the-sand attitude we’ve come to expect from the Georgia GOP. While the temperatures soared to triple digits outside, Republican legislators calmly assured everyone that global warming was unproven and might never happen.

Global warming is a fact. It is already happening. The ice caps are melting, and at a faster rate than scientists expected. If this is not true, then please explain the tizzy of various countries trying to stake their claim on the oil reserves beneath the melting ice. The only aspect of climate change that is still debated by serious scientists is the cause – human actions, natural cycles, or a combination. To suggest that global warming itself could be “fiction” is pure madness.

Or maybe it is not madness at all. Maybe the denial of reality is deliberate and down-right evil. Reading through the list of so-called climate experts brought in by the Republicans dispels any illusions of a fair hearing. How can institutes designed to support big oil and big coal while opposing environmental laws be trusted to tell our leaders whether climate change is for real? If they wanted the truth about climate change, they would have asked South Georgia farmers, who are suffering one of the worst droughts in history. They also could have asked the Texas flood victims, and the Texas drought and fire victims. They could have asked the sufferers of Hurricane Dean, which was categorized as one of the worst hurricanes ever. They could have asked south Georgians living on the outskirts of the burned-out Okefenokee.

Someday school children will read how Republican politicians denied the obvious and fought all our attempts to save the earth. They will read how science was politicized, and the Republican Party took the side of the coal and oil industry, turning their backs on farmers, wildlife, and the very earth itself. On the other hand, if we let the Republicans have their way, there will be no children left to read the story.