SLAVERY STILL ALLOWED IN THE U.S.

People have let the idea of government-run healthcare become too complex, when it can actually be distilled into one simple concept: Until my most basic need in life is paid for with my taxes, not one red cent of it should pay for a road, school, library or courthouse. Anything less is tantamount to government-sanctioned slavery.

Even if I can’t afford the medical treatment I need to live, I’m still obliged to pay my taxes, right? That renders my healthcare needs secondary to those of my already overpaid Congressman, who has excellent healthcare coverage, courtesy of my taxes. From where I sit, Ante Bellum Massa’s alive and well, and his name is Uncle Sam. If one citizen’s life is protected to a greater extent than another, for any reason, go ahead and stitch a swastika onto Old Glory, because she’s waving over oppression of the worst kind.

If we pulled the funds from projects like The Bridge to Nowhere and dialed back our Space Program just a tad (or eliminated it completely), I’m sure we’d find the funds to pay for universal healthcare. Why don’t we have another Boston Tea Party of sorts— start dumping something in the harbor again, in protest? I suggest we start with any elected officials blocking Healthcare Reform.

Louisiana J.P. Won’t Issue Marriage License to Interracial Couple

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license a recently for an interracial couple (a white woman and a black man, in case you’re interested). I'm not aware of any law against harboring racist feelings, even under the guise of “I’m worried about their children,” but the issue of concern is his refusal to render services to a taxpaying couple he’s obliged to serve. No law degree is required in order to be elected or appointed as a J.P., but one hopes, at the very least, that these individuals possess good judgment. Yes, the couple did go elsewhere to get legally hitched, but letting Bardwell dictate the terms of his employment, even in his limited jurisdiction, is tacitly sanctioning racial discrimination, and that’s unacceptable. Bardwell said he came to the conclusion that most black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society. “Yet, the children are innocent. They had nothing to do with that,” he said. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.” How touching…and laughable. Bardwell’s wife, who answered the initial phone call from the couple, even asked which of them was white before refusing services and referring them to another J.P. Much as I hate to speculate on the machinations of a mind like Bardwell’s, I’ll bet he’d also refuse to marry an interracial couple beyond the age of having a child naturally or who may consider adopting the orphaned or abandoned offspring of other interracial couples. Even more illogical than Bardwell?—continuing to pay him when he won’t perform one of the services he’s paid to deliver.

In addition to being terminated immediately, Bardwell should be required to repay any salary and benefits he received from the time he refused to fully perform his duties as a J.P. There are lots of intelligent Louisiana citizens who are jobless, probably many who are willing to abide by the statutes of their state. I’m sure Bardwell’s position wouldn’t be vacant for long.

CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER ORDAINED AS A MINISTER

9/14/09

There's not enough whiskey in Texas to make me forget what I heard today -- the most sickening released sex offender story I've heard in over a week. Sad that I have to say "the most sickening", since we have so many of his type released into society these days, and they inevitably offend again. The only silver lining to this story is that Mark Hourigan and his mentor have gotten their mugs on TV, so maybe his neighbors (I mean those outside his church) will recognize him.

Hourigan, a convicted sex offender, has “served his time” and been ordained as a Christian minister at the City of Refuge Church in Germantown, Kentucky. He's giving TV interviews, eyes welling up on cue, recounting how he changed his ways, paid his debt to society, and is now ready to serve God as a minister, thanks to the "forgiveness" of many good people (he didn't mention his only known victim, a boy just 11 years old at the time). Hourigan says he aims to "give hope" to other criminals (sufferers of pedophilia?) and make them see that there is forgiveness for their sins. I wish I could personally explain the meaning of "suffering" to this self-deluding jackass, but someone bigger and angrier (maybe the victim himself, if grown by now) will surely beat me to it.

Someone needs to remind Hourigan (and any psychobabbling idiot defending him) that pedophilia isn’t an affliction like cancer. Some people with that perversion manage to resist their urges, and it’s only a crime if you act on them, as he did. Getting caught—now that’s what he’s sorry for. He didn't claim to be insane when he did it, so what was he, exactly? Mistaken? No, he did it knowing it was wrong, and was sane enough to conceal it, and probably other offenses we'll never know of. So, why did he get credit for "good behavior" in prison, where his victim of choice was simply unavailable? Smokers aren't "cured" when they don't have access to tobacco, so what makes anyone think that incarceration cures sickos like Hourigan? If anything, it probably makes them yearn for their victims even more.

As we approach the highest holy day of Judaism, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), I am obliged to examine my conscience and ask myself if I have done anything, consciously or unconsciously, to hurt anyone—and to ask forgiveness for it in person, if possible. I was taught that true atonement entails much more than this, though. And, there may indeed be some wrongs, as in Hourigan's case, for which no adequate repair is really possible.

Mark Hourigan shouldn’t even dream of forgiveness until he atones, by 1. taking Responsibility for his deeds (not blame it on his “illness”), 2. Repenting (genuinely), 3. Repairing the harm he did (as if that’s even possible) and 4. Returning to a state of grace (impossible without the preceding three). Has he attempted any of this? Doubtful. Shopping his story to the media with the all the modesty of a lingerie model on a catwalk is the only evidence I need that he isn't contrite...and hasn’t repented.

Hourigan's victim will surely be re-victimized by seeing his abuser on TV, and his suffering is worse than any prison sentence Hourigan could have served. In this case, the offender can't fix what he broke, even if he paid for his victim's therapy by busting rocks in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

But, with the respectable mantle of the ministry, he’ll have better opportunities to abuse kids, with nothing but an ineffective sex offender registry policy to hinder him. Our prison system often returns a worse sex offender to society than the one initially incarcerated. They are (for the most part) incurable, but they could be quarantined to protect us and our children. We do that much with lepers and imported livestock.

Since that won’t happen to “Reverend” Hourigan, unless he gets caught again, let me unofficially declare "open season" on him. Some ancient tribes had an effective way of dealing with such an evildoer — if allowed to live at all, he’d be "shunned"—cut off from anyone who would offer him assistance, shelter, food, tools or weapons. He might even be forced into the desert to meet his demise. In Hourigan’s case, the press could (in a similar vein) hound this "church" relentlessly until it was forced to shun him. Hourigan's type of criminal usually abuses more than one child, on more than one occasion, before getting caught. If that doesn’t put a person beyond the pale, folks, nothing does.

Members of the church that condoned this unspeakable idiocy should resign from it, unless and until it turns this monster out. I doubt that their Savior would require them to accept the false repentance of this smirking scumbag, who has been merely spit-shined to appear respectable. If a convicted felon can't even hold elected office in this country, shouldn't he be universally ineligible for the clergy, where he might have unquestioned access to more victims?

I count many good Christians among my friends and family, and I don’t think any of them hold the belief that "forgiveness" means ignoring the past deeds of a criminal who remains a serious threat to any child within his grasp. This type of criminal even makes me long for the (sometimes) draconian justice of some middle-eastern Muslim communities. If they'd cut off the hand of a thief, just imagine what swift and apt justice they'd mete out to the likes of Hourigan.

Ignoring what we know about sex offenders, and allowing them any chance to repeat their crimes, especially against children, is far worse than withholding "forgiveness" from someone who hasn't earned it. Any tribunal—whether political, military or ecumenical—that doesn't expose and effectively punish proven sex offenders immediately, shares their guilt.

Mark Hourigan would get no attention at all without his type of crime. He'd be merely one more conman who found salvation behind bars. But, because of the particularly heinous nature of his crimes, he should get the "shunning" he’s due–and be swiftly kicked off the media train before he can secure a book deal–or even a paycheck for his "ministry".

I think Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad would all agree on that.

The Myth of "Team Building" at the Office

Have you ever had a "Team Building" event at your office? More often than not, it's a "warm fuzzy" to make the bad executives feel better about spending tons of money on consultants, while continuing to abuse the staffers who are actually doing the real work. Good companies rarely do them. They give raises, instead, and hold company picnics, because they enjoy each others' company outside of the office.

Years ago, when I believed I was working for the most dysfunctional company in the free world, I wrote a little list of analogies based on the characters in Frank L. Baum's classic tale (which was a political analogy in itself).


"THE WIZARD OF ODDZ "

Question: Can you spot any of these characters in the organization where you work? (Feel free to reply, no matter who you are. This is an open forum, so you should protect your identity against the wrath of supervisors who may recognize themselves.)

The Tornado: The tornado upset Dorothy’s peaceful existence, destroyed part of it, and sent her on a difficult path (the yellow brick road) of self-discovery. This path had stumbling blocks and villains that hindered her progress, but it ultimately provided a good education. The tornado is a metaphor for anything that can devastate a company, or simply whittle away at morale. It could be a reorganization, the loss of competent employees or top clients, a stock market crash, mismanagement, or miscommunication. It doesn't have to be big or threatening if what it's trying to destroy is already weak. It can sink the boat if everyone isn’t rowing (or bailing) together.

Auntie Em: A good worker who is just overwhelmed by her responsibilities. Slackers and incompetent managers heap work on her because she’s one capable person surrounded by poor planners and elitists. She's had to stifle her natural creativity, because so much grunt work is given to her. She obeys company policy and all industry rules, but can’t stand up to Miss Gulch. Without a decent salary or benefits, she has no real reason to stay, so she will be the first one to jump ship when an opportunity arises. Her main problem is that Miss Gulch keeps her too busy with weekend assignments to spend time with her kids or look for another job.

Toto: He’s a metaphor for what we all care about – the people or things for which we'd risk or sacrifice anything. It's the only good reason to continue working for a company we can't really believe in.

Uncle Henry: Basically a decent person, he’s in a department that isn’t making any money, and he can’t figure out why. He's worried that the company isn't getting many contracts, even though their bids are sometimes lowest. He senses the company is getting a bad reputation, but stays, mostly by default, because they haven't invested in his professional development. Unable to compete in the current job market, he's still too young to retire.

Miss Gulch: Jealous of anyone with a life outside the office, she’s determined to ruin their off-time. She secretly rejoices at the failures of others, but is not above stealing their ideas. Without much relevant experience in the industry she's in, she has no idea how to help advance the company. Her staff watches her waste tons of money on self-aggrandizing PR, while all their PCs malfunction and need replacing. Vendors on her approved list, despite frequently delivering substandard work. Emergency projects are the norm, because she doesn't plan ahead. After scanning industry publications for buzzwords, she uses them so often that Uncle Henry's field hands created a drinking game based on it. Bicycling home one dark Friday night after Happy Hour, she was run off the road by a car driven by her assistant, who hastily buried her behind the Gales' out-house. Toto now takes his morning dump there. After a decent interval, her property was auctioned off by the county, which eventually funded Dorothy's revamping of the farm.

Dorothy: A True Believer, she recognizes potential in others, expects everyone to be ethical, and trusts people until she’s proven wrong (and sometimes even afterwards). She’ll do her best to diagnose and solve problems, even in unfamiliar territory. She was dropped into Oddz and is doing her best to get her friends' needs met. Maybe there’s nothing in that black bag for her, but she isn’t afraid to challenge the Wizard when he's abusive. She was so glad to get out of Oddz that she didn't even mind facing Miss Gulch again, but she'd already disappeared.

The Scarecrow: He thinks he isn’t smart, but he has a unique insight -- he was able to manipulate the talking trees into throwing a few of their apples when Dorothy got hungry. This was unfairly seen as brown-nosing by his co-workers, but it had the desired effect. He’s loyal to a fault, and will defend others, even at his own peril. His vulnerability is his straw (his trusting nature). His lack of confidence in himself means that he doesn’t get any respect from the crows in his department. He’d been hanging on that nail in the field for years, not aspiring to do anything more, until Dorothy came along and asked directions. He rose to the challenge, dared to invite himself along on her journey, and ended up finding a new career.

The Tin Man: He thinks he has no heart, but he's just dogmatic. Not very flexible, he can get stuck in a rut very easily, but he's willing to learn. He knows he'll rust if doesn't keep his sense of humor handy. His special talent is his ax, which gets him out of most crises, but he knows there are more subtle and effective management methods to be learned. He gets stuck most often when the company won't let him invest in more progressive equipment and training.

The Cowardly Lion: He isn't cowardly, but he's never been given a challenge worthy of his talents. His true nature emerged when he admitted to his shortcomings and asked for help, then began looking for a company he could believe in. He used to believe that strength was shown by being a bully, but now he despises oppression in all its forms. He's ready to work for a company that will value his leadership skills.

Glinda, the Good Witch: The best manager in the company, she is beloved and trusted by the Munchkins. She protects them, gives them confidence, recognizes their strengths, and isn’t threatened by their talents. Knowing they are capable, she doesn’t micro-manage, but gives them good directions and gets out of their way, only reappearing when they need a pep talk. She laughs at the Wicked Witch because she recognizes a true coward in action.

The Munchkins: They get along very well in their individual and team roles, until the Wicked Witch shows up. They are initially wary of strangers, because they've seen more than one Wicked Witch come and go, but they trust Glinda’s judgment, and are very helpful to new hires. They are grateful to Dorothy, who solved their main crisis without even trying.

The Wicked Witch of the West: She’s your worst nightmare, and the most difficult to change, because she’s comfortable with the status quo. Ruling by intimidation, she bullies everyone, and plays upon their deepest fears. She slyly discovers the personal vulnerabilities of her staff, and stores them up like ammunition, but carefully guards her own, trusting no one. She covets the unique power of the ruby slippers and will do anything, or betray anyone, to get them. Once her sister (he Witch of the East) was dead, she saw them as her right. She pretends to blame Dorothy for landing a house on her sister, but the truth is, she saw the house falling and pushed her sister underneath it. She knows she isn’t qualified to be the top witch, having been promoted to the position only by default. The soldiers are so sick of her that they keep a bucket of water in the tower, presumably for the flying monkeys, hoping she'll spill it on herself.

The flying monkeys: They are the drones of the operation. They have no original ideas, no ethics, and can be bought by the highest bidder. They do the Wicked Witch’s bidding only because they couldn’t get jobs anywhere else. They never operate as individuals, and only feel powerful when they can gang up on someone weaker. The Witch got control of them by giving them titles and positions they hadn't earned, but hired others to do the real work. If she hadn't rendered them helpless, they would’ve gone elsewhere and become truly qualified.
Now that the Wicked Witch has been melted, they'll lay around the castle for awhile and collect unemployment until they're evicted by the IRS who's selling the place to cover back taxes. They will be easily persuaded to take out high interest loans and enter a multilevel marketing business, but will quickly go bankrupt.

The soldiers in the Witch’s castle: Better than the flying monkeys, they stay primarily because they recognize a good manager when they see one, and want to see things improve. They weren’t quite brave enough to speak their minds when the Witch was around, but they are terribly grateful to Dorothy for getting rid of her. The good king at the neighboring castle is already trying to recruit them, but they truly have hope for the company now that a competent manager can be hired.

The Water: Honesty and exposure. Dorothy came into the dysfunctional company (Oddz), realized what the problem was, and tossed out some fresh new ideas, which turned out to be beneficial for everyone.

The Wizard: He wasn't really happy with his management style, but didn't know how to be more effective. He used to blame others when a project fell through, but he eventually admitted he had used the wrong tactics. He now knows he can’t force anyone to do his bidding; he can only achieve his aims by earning his staff's respect and loyalty by doing the right thing. This he did by helping develop their potential, not just for the company, but for their own personal betterment. Too bad this only happened when Toto pulled back the curtain, but at least it happened. The Wizard is fascinated by Dorothy's potential, and secretly acknowledges that she's the real rainmaker in the company. If he can get her on his team, he can finally become what he longs to be.

The black bag: It holds the rewards of encouragement, recognition, merit raises and earned promotions. Some people know there isn’t anything in the black bag for them. At a dysfunctional company, they observe others getting credit for their ideas or a select few getting recognized and rewarded. Calling attention to this will only earn a reputation as a trouble-maker, so they won't often rock the boat. These people eventually leave for companies where they will be appreciated.

The Wizard's hot air balloon: This is the company Dorothy thought she wanted to work in. The poor, ineffectual Wizard had no idea how to anticipate the winds of change in his industry, so he couldn't steer it. After (luckily) missing the flight, Dorothy decided that investing in herself was her best chance. She closed her eyes, clicked her heels and ended up getting where she wanted to go, without the balloon.

The Farm: The company where Dorothy landed after the Tornado. Actually, she found it a bit boring after her wild ride to parts unknown, and she longed to set out on a more exciting career path. She didn't stay in Kansas very long, but helped the farm become prosperous again before starting her own consultancy.

The Wicked Truth: Dorothy was so empowered by solving such a big problem in Oddz, that she actually began to seek them out, and became a management consultant. She learned the only way to "steer" the balloon was by raising and lowering it, according to the wind currents. Flying her own balloon back to Oddz, she interviewed with the Wizard, who had landed there safely after only a few minutes aloft. He did have something in that black bag for her, after all. He proposed they go into business together, and is now finding more businesses for her to turn around.

Woman Rescued From Kidnapper/Rapist after 18 Years

When will our justice system get it through their collective heads that sex offenders don't get rehabilitated in prison? The story of Jaycee Dugard, her abduction in June of 1991 at age 11, and her subsequent imprisonment and rape over the next 18 years, is as compelling an argument for stricter sex offender laws as we are likely to hear anywhere.

Philip Garrido and his wife, accomplices in this nightmare, kept Jaycee locked in a sound-proofed shed in their backyard for most of those 18 years, during which she was forced to give birth to two daughters by her rapist, now 15 and 4 years of age (the first born when she was herself just 14). Neither of her children has ever been to a doctor or to school, and we can well imagine to what horrors they have been subjected, as well as their mother.

Nobody knew. Nobody could see the sheds and tents in the backyard over the 6' fence, nobody heard anything because of the soundproofing; nobody had much contact with the Garridos. A neighbor said he had a conversation with Garrido once, years ago, about "mind control," and shrugged it off as harmless weirdness.

Along with everyone else who saw the TV news coverage of the chance encounter between a parole officer and the "family" on the Berkeley campus this week, I asked myself why this guy was ever paroled, even with a GPS monitoring bracelet strapped to his ankle. It doesn't seem to have hindered him in the least. Why aren't paroled sex offenders subjected to routine searches of their homes and vehicles? Is it enough to say that we can't continue to punish someone who has "paid their debt to society"? Don't we owe a bit more protection to their past (and future) victims? When a person harms a child in such a devastating way, they've given up their membership card in the human race, they no longer deserve to see the light of day. When there was incontravertible evidence that Garrido committed a kidnapping and rape in the 70s, why was he ever allowed out of prison? It was no great feat for him to "behave" in prison, where there are no helpless women or children to rape.

I read that Jaycee is feeling some guilt for having developed a bond with her captor. As a victim, one cannot blame her for surviving as best she could in a horrific situation. The monster who held her captive for so long succeeded in deluding himself that he had "turned his life around," and told the authorities they would see "the most amazing, heart-warming story" unfold if they just went to the very beginning and traced it "step by step."

Well, Mr Garrido, I'm afraid there's no such luxury in store for you. I hear our prison system includes quite a match-making service for kiddie rapists. Your date for the next 10-25 years will prove a willing listener, I'm sure, as he's wreaking havoc on you, the same way you wreaked havoc on Jaycee Dugard for the past 18 years. I'm not ashamed to say that kind of justice, for you, suits me just fine.

A CURRENT TV AD I HATE

It's a slow news day and I am feeling a bit curmudgeonly, so indulge me a bit while I rant about something that has absolutely no ill effect on my general wellbeing. It's the (relatively) new TV ad for Sandals. You know it as the reasonably-priced resort that even most of us still-employed middle-class worker bees can't afford any more. The copy itself isn't that bad. Okay, it is pretty schmaltzy, and obviously meant to trigger our "even in these tough economic times," emotional switch, but it's still not the worst part. It goes something like this:
"What could be more important than the ones we love? The ones who love us? So, if you're asking yourself if it's time to get away..." yadda yadda yadda...
Nope, the script isn't the offensive part. What has the bile half-rising in my throat is the voice talent they hired. The images are of a flawless, way-under-40 couple, nuzzling romantically as the ocean breeze blows their perfect hair and gauzy beach wraps in slo-mo.
Cue the voiceover: It's a smug-sounding twenty-something with a crackling, smartass voice that conjures up mental images of Eddie Haskell trying to sound earnest, and fighting the urge to dissolve in laughter at the copy he's recording. Listen closely. At any moment, you'll expect him to cover the mike and tell his producer, "You kiddin' me? Nobody goes to this place to rekindle a spark. They go there to rub suntan lotion on strangers and lay, blissfully blitzed, on the beach for a week." It's the voice of the fraternity pledgemaster who stole your never-mailed, drunkenly composed love letter to the girl who just dumped you, then read it aloud to the entire brotherhood during hell week. Maybe you still wake up in a cold sweat occasionally, having dreamt this guy (or his son) is your new boss. James Spader launched his career playing this character back in the '80s. You get the idea.
What I want to know is, which ad agency is responsible for this, and did they do any market research at all before settling on this particular voice talent? Granted, nobody wants Wilford Brimley doing a voiceover that's supposed to be both family-friendly and sexy, but neither do we want to envision our neighbor's teenager spying over the backyard fence as we cuddle in the hammock with our spouse.
Sandals, if you really want this ad to work, tell your agency to hire a grownup to re-do the voice bit. One that makes women think of a straight Marlboro Man, all weather-beaten and macho, holding a glass of good Scotch. And while you're at it, get a real couple, with just a few battle scars, too, for the visual. One that you can picture having a passle of rebellious kids at home, and having to choose between a week at Sandals, or replacing the roof.
Bet your sales go waaaay up.

Farewell to Michael Jackson

Michael, we hardly knew ye. The only facet of your complex personality you wanted us to know, the brilliant showman, conflicted with the other side we glimpsed occasionally -- the vulnerable but self-deluding, self-destructive man. Like many of your longtime fans, I held mixed feelings about you, especially when you seemed to court the attention of the same tabloid press that was often unfair to you.

It wasn't that you were strange, although you often seemed to intentionally bolster that perception. You posed for photographs sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber. You gave naive, careless answers to interview questions. Twice, you dashed out of the hospital with a newborn child -- seemingly more concerned with your privacy than their safety. Some of us perceived this kind of behavior as your rebellious answer (and a sometimes genius-like manipulation of) the press. After all, it did serve to get you talked up when your fan base was less than awestruck with your musical offerings.

It wasn't even that you continually changed your appearance. Other celebrities (and we lesser mortals) do that all the time, often without the valid reasons you had -- a devastating skin condition and a history of emotionally crippling criticism from an abusive father.

For me, the mixed feelings stem from your refusal to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing, and your refusal to take care of yourself physically. Against the advice of family and friends who truly loved you, you continued to risk the loss of your livelihood, your freedom, and even your children. We knew of your philanthropic efforts -- of your genuine love for children and the rest of humanity. I, for one, don't believe you ever crossed the boundaries of propriety with any child, but why did you give anyone reason to doubt your motives? Why would'nt you keep the visits of sick children to Neverland Ranch completely above-board? You managed to avoid prison, but left yourself forever stained by the worst kind of accusations. As an entertainer, you must've been aware that perception almost always trumps the truth. So now, even the most loyal of your fans outwardly mourn the loss of your immense talent while inwardly questioning your judgment. Even the best of lawyers would struggle to defend you against the bizarre behavior we witnessed: You in Las Vegas, squandering your fortune on a spending spree, dangling your infant son out of a hotel window, taking your children to a public zoo yourself, knowing they'd be mobbed by the paparazzi.

The rotten childhood you survived always shadowed the entertainment genius that emerged, but we've now seen images of the loving, patient father you became in spite of it. Why couldn't you let us see this authentic side of you while you were alive? Like millions of others, I was riveted by the brief but heartrending tribute spoken by your daughter at your memorial service. You gave us so much, but your warped perceptions made you all too vulnerable to the minions willing to give you anything you asked for, even if it meant the destruction of your health. It's tragic that you were unable to give your children the gift of a healthy father. We all know they would've preferred that to the inheritance they'll receive now.

Governor Sanford, Shut Up Already

Governor Sanford, you're not helping yourself. Do you think it's smart to publicly whine over the loss of your sexy Argentinian "soulmate" when you should be atoning for your sins -- not only to the people you represent, but to your wife?

Firstly, a helluva lot of male and female voters in your state will now write you off as too incompetent (and too unlikeable) to govern them. Secondly, if you had any hope of reconciling with the wife you're "trying to fall back in love with," that comment has officially blown your chance. Any self-respecting wife would feel honor-bound to kick your stupid, condescending ass to the curb after a comment like that.

Political Cad Hall-of-Famers like Elliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton must be privately snickering at your amateurish handling of the press, and the writing team at SNL can go take a nice long vacation, 'cuz you've just them enough material for their entire coming season. Here's my prediction of the first few sketches they'll write about you: Bill Clinton and John McCain, in a show of bipartisan cooperation, drag you out to the woodshed and hang you, POW-style, from a wall and take turns smacking you silly. Or, maybe they'll portray former Senator McGreevey alternately smooching and waterboarding you, with a leather clad Dick Cheney pistol-whipping you both. In any case, the late night TV hosts and their writers will probably pass the hat on your behalf and send you a nice check, Governor, which may come in handy, since it's clear your services won't be needed in South Carolina much longer.

The national media is incredulous, stopping just short of calling you completely clueless, and wondering aloud if you're intentionally committing political suicide. I'm picturing your (supposedly) forsaken Argentinian mistress watching the TV news commentary and shaking her head in wonder, as well. Has she come to her senses, perhaps? Is she now counting herself lucky that you're back in the States and no longer her problem? Is your wife still willing to take you back after yet another of your clumsy public mea culpas -- even though you'd probably soon be sitting at home all day in your jammies, patiently pecking out your memoirs? After a few months of that, I doubt she'd be willing to -- as you so gallantly put it -- "try to fall back in love" with you.

KUDOS: Genuine Support from a Wronged Political Wife

How to Stand by your Cad

Thank you, Jenny Sanford, for showing the rest of us how it’s done. Unlike the relatively recent parade of political wives faced with admittedly unfaithful husbands, you did not stand stoically at your husband’s side as he made his public apology.

You were with your kids on Father’s Day, refusing to say where your philandering husband was spending the holiday. For their sake, you kept the dirty laundry as private as possible.
You’ve also shown the future Wronged Political Wives’ Club (because there will be more of you) the dignified way to handle an intrinsically undignified situation. You stayed away, and let the guy face the music on his own.

Generally, we Americans don’t have a problem with the Wronged Political Wife forgiving her husband, we just get ticked off when she makes it seem easy for him. Of course, we know her "support" is shown for the public’s benefit, often as a prelude to the literal or legal thrashing he’s got coming, but it still garners a measure of contempt for the wife who stands by her man mutely and humiliated, as he makes his apologies sound as sincere as possible.

I’m willing to bet that most American women collectively squirmed while watching Dina McGreevey, Silda Spitzer and even Hillary Clinton go through the dutiful wife act, although all of them later claimed no prior knowledge of their husbands’ extracurricular activities. You, on the other hand, say that you not only knew, but that you had asked him to leave in order to sort things out. You didn’t let him conduct the affair from the comfort of your home, shielding him from the hurt he would cause his children. One last visit with the forbidden fruit notwithstanding, he appears to have ended his affair and returned to begin repairing the marriage. And, because of the way you’ve conducted yourself, Jenny, I’m betting you have a good chance.

The forgiving type of Wronged Wife isn’t often shown the kind of charity she bestows on her errant husband, but then again, it's rarely bestowed this well.

God Help the Children of Women in Denial

July 2, 2008
As I watched this evening’s edition of Nancy Grace on CNN, the story of the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old Vermont girl, Brooke Bennett, gripped me to the point of nausea. The facts of the case are sickening enough. The girl apparently had been sexually abused by her uncle and stepfather since the age of nine. Both men had trafficked in pornography and were known sex offenders. The uncle, who had no children, used his brother-in-law to gain access to Brooke. What is especially chilling is that the girl’s mother and aunt (sisters) were both married to men who they knew were sex offenders. The uncle, who was a convicted sex offender, had once even been allowed to share the family residence. And now a little girl is dead – probably at the hands of her uncle. He had gained access to her MySpace account to keep tabs on her, and possibly counted on her online activity to deflect suspicion from himself.

This is an all-too-common tragedy, and begs this question: Why are there so many women willing to sacrifice the safety of their children in order to have a romantic partner or provider? Is it that these women were themselves victimized and are even now in denial? Or do they let themselves be fooled by a respectable-looking man who’s only willing to cohabit with them in order to gain access to their children? They say the mother always knows on some level. How could she not? And knowing… how could she possibly accept it?

It’s a mother’s obligation to hold her companions to the most rigorous standards when it comes to contact with her children, and we assume most mothers have a finely tuned inner radar. Some women don't, but they're not always poor, uneducated, or outwardly vulnerable. Intelligent women you would consider genetic lotto winners will sometimes let themselves ignore a host of red flags when a prospective partner fits their “checklist”. Pedophiles come from all walks of life, too. They are often pillars of society – well-to-do, attractive, some with children of their own. They may be in professions where they have unquestioned access to children. This type of predator often specializes in sweeping a woman off her feet – often delivering a whirlwind courtship with such skill that he isolates his target (and her children) from all other friends and family. Some women preyed upon by such men will allow their judgment to fail somewhere in the area between the fantasy of "My Prince Has Come," and the realization of, "I’m in a financial mess and out of options."

I have heard firsthand accounts from several adults who, as children, had been left in the company of unknown adults or older children, and were then molested or worse. Sometimes the victimized child was simply in the same house with a much-older child without the close supervision of a trusted adult. Vigilance in this area is not paranoia, but it's often treated as such. Parents should be in the business of knowing where and with whom their children play and associate. They should be familiar enough with the parents of their kids’ friends to know (at the very least) which adults and teenagers are living in the home. Sadly, even the best safeguards are sometimes not enough, especially when predators hone their skills so well.

A few years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call “E”, told me she had chatted online and on webcam with a man she had never met, while holding her five year old daughter on her lap. When I mentioned the possibility of a pedophile scouting dating sites for a mother with young children, she was aghast – not at the realization this was true – but by the idea that I would doubt her judgment of online “friends.” After a hasty courtship, she moved with her two daughters halfway across the country to marry this man. Now, two years later, she is divorced again. I don’t know what happened in the marriage, but I saw firsthand how little vetting the guy was subjected to before she made this decision. I hear she is husband-hunting again. I marvel at her desperation and carelessness. I truly fear for her daughters.

Sarah Palin Wastes Valuable Air Time (Again)

Sarah, there you go again, conducting your education in public. This is exactly what the country has come to expect from you. David Letterman is a comedian, fahcrissakes. Your whining is only providing fodder for those who can't take you seriously, anyway. Your daughter (whichever one he was referring to in his joke) doesn't need protection from him or any other public figures, except maybe you and your nitwit husband. Wasn't it right under your oblivious noses that Bristol did get knocked up? That's what Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol's baby, hinted at publicly, and his comments weren't made in jest.

1) Letterman's researchers obviously spotted your minor daughter in the press tape of the ball game and mistook her for Bristol. If you must criticize him at all, let it be for having sloppy researchers, not for picking on you or your kids.

2) He wasn't calling you "slutty", it was your "slutty flight attendant look," he referred to. Your deliberate rephrasing of his joke and your admonishing the public to show more respect for flight attendants, was disingenous by anyone's standards. Believe me, there are tougher women than you in that profession, fully able to handle an attitude or deliver a punch, if necessary. Your silly attempt at defending them probably got more laughs from the AFA than Letterman's line got from his TV audience.

3) You played along with your "Caribou Barbie" image on SNL, as long as you were in the running for VP. I had no intention of voting for your ticket, Sarah, but I sorta liked you then. You were a good sport, and made a believable effort at mature, self-deprecating humor. Now, even your longtime supporters must be wondering how, if you can't handle ribbing from a late night talk show host, you'd do any better with an openly hostile foreign head of state?

By responding to Letterman at all, and keeping this ridiculous topic in the news, you're confirming something the Republican party realized even before they muzzled you on election night: You're an intellectual lightweight who can't be trusted to speak on their behalf. Babbling indiscriminantly for any journalist with a camera, commenting on government policies you haven't bothered to research, and whining about the comments of a professional comedian is no way to build credibility.

How about educating yourself, so that you might one day have opinions worth listening to in the sphere of national politics? There's quite a lot of valuable insight you might have to share, if you didn't concern yourself with the superficial. The GOP began scouting around for someone to replace you five minutes after the polls closed, and my guess is, you're really angry about that -- you just can't say so.

Those who now insist that Cindy McCain never wanted to be First Lady, pose her as the wise procuress who selected you to become his arm candy. Interesting theory, that, and completely believable. Who else but you, Sarah, could've infused his campaign with so much excitement while deflecting attention from his boring old white guy persona? Who else could've held the public so rapt with attention, after cramming for the debate with Joe Biden? You're the smartest decision they made, but Cindy, a former Barbie herself, planted a landmine in her husband's campaign when she gave her consent. You were the publicly perfect consort who would guarantee his loss: Beautiful, folksy, sympathetic... but vacuous.

In reality, Sarah, the GOP hooked up with you for their equivalent of a booty call, then dumped you when you failed to deliver. So, if you can't make them include you in the short list of serious presidential contenders, at least try to be smart with what remains of your 15 minutes of fame -- use it to find a niche that suits your real talents. After all, you were pretty good on SNL...

KUDOS: FDA to Regulate Tobacco Industry

The tobacco industry has gotten by for decades peddling a product that isn't just potentially deadly, but deadly beyond a shadow of a doubt. As legal products go, tobacco is unique -- if you use it for its intended purpose, in the manner intended, you will likely become so addicted that you can't function without it. That addiction will, eventually, compromise your health or kill you. Since the tobacco industry effectively kills off its own customers, it must aggressively recruit new ones. The new legislation will limit the amounts of nicotine and flavorings tobacco companies can add to cigarettes, and limit the advertising targeted to minors. Well done.

Now for a little relevant rant. Many law-abiding, job-holding, tax-paying US citizens think it's laughable that smoking a little weed is still considered a crime... well, okay, a misdemeanor. Some physicians will even acknowledge that it's related to fewer health problems than either tobacco or alcohol. A recent national poll shows that minors have less of a problem buying pot than alcohol. Too bad it took our economic nosedive to make pundits sit up and consider a better way to halt the illegal import and distribution of marijuana: loosen restrictions on using it, license and regulate the growers, and tax it. Surely there are other more dangerous substances -- cocaine and meth -- coming across US borders, which deserve a larger share of the DEA's efforts. And, let's not forget all of the ancilliary illegal activity supported by trafficking in those drugs -- illegal gun trading, slavery of drug "mules" and forced prostitution of addicts, to name just a few.

Lest you think I'm advocating the use of marijuana, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only suggesting we claim the considerable revenues from folks are going to use it, anyway.

Unlike tobacco used for legal cigarettes, marijuana provides well-documented relief for those suffering from the effects of chemotherapy. It may be legally permissable for cancer sufferers to use it, they just can't get a prescription for it (or a recommendation, as it's called in California), and many have faced prosecution for growing their own, if they don't have the good fortune to live in California when they get cancer. Finding a "pot doc" in California, I hear, is as easy as finding a masseuse in Las Vegas. After a short interview, just about anyone can get a "recommendation" for a one-time fee of $200 or so, and it's good for a full year of unlimited purchases. You can get a "recommendation" for pot to treat anything from depression to chronic back pain, but a bad case of boredom is all some of the users really suffer. Big deal. We're going to deny them recreational use of pot while our laws let drivers drink and text? Priorities, people, priorities. I'd rather have a kid stoned at home than texting or drunk on the highway, and so would most parents. The munchies never killed anyone, that I'm aware of.

The barrier to actually prescribing pot as a treatment is that there isn't any recommended dosage. Users can take their recommendation to boutique "distribution centers" that offer cannabis in literally hundreds of strengths and varieties, and in bottled teas and baked goods.

Compare the benefit of a product that is occasionally used with the fact that cigarette smokers (even the pregnant ones) can currently get their 'nicotine high' legally while placing an undue burden on the non-smokers in their insurance pools. How many smokers accurately report their smoking habits when applying for insurance benefits? How does our current healthcare system incentivize smokers to quit? As our healthcare system is reformed and our medical records are digitized, it will become easier to regulate the use of tobacco. Legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana use would be simply adding another 'sin tax' to our coffers. Making it available in all states as a pain remedy to the desperately ill would be a blessing. It's not an unsupportable assumption that, minus the cost of administering the regulation, this new industry would still yield a tidy profit. This isn't raising taxes, mind you, it's snatching another source of revenue out of thin air.

There are many logical supply chains for such a crop. Can you imagine the revenues our federal prisons could generate by having their inmates do all the farming? Built in cheap labor, already existing security, plus a guaranteed way to keep the inmates happy! Here's another one: Native Americans run casinos on reservation land with the government's full blessing, so why not license this business to them as well? There would be a certain poetic justice in letting them raise a profitable crop on the land systematically stolen from them during the past two centuries. Finally righting past wrongs, making restitution that doesn't cost a dime -- what a PR coup that would be for Uncle Sam!

Our government needs to grow up, reassess, stop wasting our money on a fight that isn't working, and use this crop to defray some of the enormous debt currently being piled onto the backs of the next generation. When so many more important fights face us today, does it really make sense to continue fighting marijuana? When the time comes to answer that question, please, Just Say No.

KUDOS: Zahava Rahnavad

Women were allowed to register to vote for the first time in Iran's current presidential race, although none were deemed 'fit to run,' themselves, by the old regime. Zahava Rahnavad, an artist and activist for women's rights in Iran, is the first woman to actively campaign with her husband, the favorite to oust the incumbent buffoon, Ahmadinejad, from office. She is largely believed to be the brains of the outfit, ala Hilary Clinton. Maybe the Iranians, who are waiting hours in line to vote in record turnouts, with finally see adequate representation and freedoms for their women.

2:30 pm CST
This just in -- apparently the Iranians have just reelected Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming majority, even though they've not yet counted all the votes. I'm not holding my breath for a recount. By the way, anyone noticed Jeb Bush's whereabouts lately? Didn't he promise to "deliver Iraq" to the GOP? Oops, my bad. That was Florida. The middle east is learning something from the US, after all.

Rumination, by a wise 90-year-old

Written by Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio.

"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:

1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.

2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.

3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone...

4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.

5. Pay off your credit cards every month.

6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.

7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.

8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.

9. Save for retirement starting with your first pay check.

10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.

11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.

12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.

13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.

14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.

15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.

16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.

17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.

18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.

19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you, no one else.

20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.

21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets and wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion, today is special.

22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.

23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.

24. The most important sex organ is the brain

25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.

26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?'

27. Always choose life.

28. Forgive everyone everything.

29. What other people think of you is none of your business.

30. Time heals almost everything. Give time.

31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.

32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.

33. Believe in miracles.

34.. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.

35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.

36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

37. Your children get only one childhood.

38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.

39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.

40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.

41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.

42. The best is yet to come.

43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.

44. Yield.

45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.

Hell No, We Won't Go

A Jewish View of Heaven and Hell, by Rabbi Max Weiman

Interfaith groups notwithstanding, major religions of the world have a big problem with each other; it's called Hell. They don't bring it up at the meetings on religious tolerance, but the official Catholic policy is that Protestants, Muslims, and Jews go to hell. Protestants say that Catholics, Muslims and Jews go to hell. And Muslims say that Christians and Jews go to hell. Although on an individual level we can ignore this, theologically it is a wall that separates major world religions.

Many liberal-minded religionists are uncomfortable with this perspective, but that remains today the official dogma. This presents a difficulty in religions embracing one another as valid roads to the same destination. How can I walk arm-in-arm with someone who believes I am destined to pain and suffering for eternity, whether I am a decent moral person or not?
A man and woman who were dating came to me for counseling. She believed in Jesus, he was a traditional Jew. I asked her how she could consider marrying someone she thinks will burn in everlasting damnation. She laughed nervously, "Well, I haven't exactly worked that out yet."

From Jewish tradition, a different viewpoint emerges starting with the fact that there doesn't exist the concept of everlasting damnation and torture. The Almighty's justice is not served by punishing someone forever. Justice means the punishment fits the crime. Since we are finite and our sins are finite, then our punishment or atonement must be finite. To take it one step further, the very connection with wrongdoing is an act of connecting to that which is temporary, physical, devoid of Godliness. On the other hand, when you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal. Evil and bad by definition do not exist forever; therefore the atonement period for wrongdoing is a fixed period of time.

This temporary place of atonement is called Gehenom, and lasts for 11 or 12 months after someone passes away. (Which is the reason why Kaddish is said for that time period. The recitation of Kaddish atones for the soul, which mitigates the suffering of Gehenom.) Also, the suffering is not fire and brimstone, but rather something more directly related to the transgressions. There are those who suggest the nature of this punishment is actually the embarrassment of standing before God, aware of your transgressions. What could be more painful than that? This embarrassment wipes away the barrier you created between you and God when you committed the transgression, and therefore is a great benefit. The atonement process is not so much a punishment as it is a spiritual dry-cleaning to rid you of any blemishes you may have on your soul before you enter the next phase, oneness with God.

Phase Two is known as the World of Souls and consists of all the souls worthy of a connection with God. This experience is still somewhat lacking until the end of days when the entire creation is corrected and rectified. Until then, righteous souls exist in a minor temporary oneness with God. Even though it's not full oneness with God, this phase is still awesomely pleasurable. When you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal.

Good Seats
Getting back to judgment, Gehenom is not the same for everyone who goes there. Each individual experiences the atonement for his or her own specific transgressions. It's a uniquely personal event.

Heaven, known as the World to Come, is also a uniquely personal experience. You only have the closeness to God that you've created. Every mitzvah that you do is a piece of Godliness that's incorporated into your soul. In the next world you will realize what that closeness means for eternity. Each person will only experience the bond they have created.

Imagine a football game, there are the 50-yard-line seats, and different levels all the way up to the cheap nosebleed seats. If you've really blown it, you can end up in the hotdog stand forever. Therefore according to the Jews, it's not necessary for you to be Jewish to end up in Heaven; it all depends on your relationship with God.

This World and the Next
It's important to note that the World to Come and Gehenom are not mentioned specifically in the Five Books of Moses. It is spoken about only in the books of the Prophets, the Writings, and the Talmud. If it's such a crucial part of Jewish philosophy, why is it absent form the Torah?
Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right.

The answer is that we are not meant to dwell on the reward and punishment that awaits us in the next world. You can be a righteous person your whole life, do every single commandment, stop hunger, bring about world peace, save the ozone and cure all disease. But if you did it all for your reward in the next world, you've lived a selfish life, which is the opposite of being one with God. The Almighty needs nothing. He is infinite, and therefore every one of His acts is purely altruistic. Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right, and not for the reward, or to avoid punishment.

The Talmud relates many incidents of people who passed away making contact with the living and telling of conversations, debates, and other bits of information from the world beyond. Similarly, many people (myself included) claim to have seen a dead relative in a dream. Even with all these "eye witness" accounts of the world beyond, we still do not have a clear picture of what its like there, nor can we, until we shuffle off this "mortal coil."

One thing's for sure, returning our soul to its source is the ultimate pleasure a being can experience. Death, then, is not a tragedy from a kabbalistic view. It is a realization of our purpose, its coming home. The problem with death is that it cuts off any further spiritual growth. We delay death as long as possible, but once it happens, the soul is delighted to be reunited with God. For this reason some kabbalists have asked their students to celebrate at their demise. Lag B'Omer, the anniversary of the death of the greatest known kabbalist, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, is celebrated with great fanfare (and great bonfires) by people all over the world.

Life is precious. We wish for long life, to do mitzvot, grow spiritually, and gain the greatest closeness we can to the Almighty in this world. But when the time comes for us to leave this world, there's no need to fear the next step. It's merely a step along the path to the ultimate pleasure of being one with God.


Published: Sunday, May 31, 200

ARGUMENT: Going Green Includes Opting for Cremation

How many of you agree that "Going Green" means doing away with traditional burial? After all, a grave does require polluting the land with stuff that was never meant to decompose or be reused (liners, metal coffins, headstones, etc.) Would you be in favor of a deal like, say, free cremation from the Uncle Sam if you donate your organs? I think that's a pretty fair trade. We'd be solving two big problems, (1) the expensive maintenance of cemeteries and the pollution of said land, and (2) the dearth of usable organs, skin and bone that could save lives and advance scientific research.

Unfortunately, the outdated practice of preserving a human body -- which no modern culture has perfected -- is still widely practiced today. Burials can still be held without an intact body, and those who prefer the practice (members of my own religion included) are comforted by the rite in many ways. After all, there's a physical place to pay respects, meditate, plant flowers -- often a monument with important information inscribed. I'd never advocate making any particular choice mandatory for anyone. All those reasons are valid, but this article will neither advocate for them, nor be reverent, so if you're tearing up already, better stop reading now.

I would prefer (for myself) an environment-preserving alternative which will probably become the norm anyway, in one more generation. The universal benefits of more organ donation should be reason enough. People who need new organs would spend less time waiting, and it would remove the worry of people donating kidneys for money or black market exploitation of the poor for healthy organs. I'm in favor of the "presumed consent" position that many other (more progressive) countries take regarding organ donation. If you don't have a clear-cut objection to it noted on your I.D., they presume that you give consent, even without contacting your next of kin.

There are lots of other options, too, for those of you who don't want your organs or other remains buried. Some enterprising individuals who have some artistic ability (and a really cool web site) can combine your ashes (actually pulverized bone fragments) with other substances into a kind of modeling clay, if you will, and mold them into a tchotchke worthy of display on your mantel. This is a wonderfully creative idea, but still presents a number of problems. Children of the deceased might want to do their own individual thing with their fair share of the ashes, or families members might still fight over custody of a single figurine, or it might get accidentally auctioned off with grandma's collection of Lladro, if you're not careful. And let's not forget about the housekeeper. She could knock grandpa off the mantel with one careless pass of the feather duster and toss the pieces out, mixing him for eternity with yesterday's coffee grounds. I like this idea for a Chia Pet, though. Less likely to get lost. Even a metal urn could be mistaken for an ashtray at some point, and could have a chilling effect on the love life of a surviving spouse. Let's not forget, somebody still has to schlep it, too, if they own it.

There's even a company that will, for a nominal fee, launch your ashes into space -- after first compressing them into a synthetic diamond. Cool idea, but what happens when the heavens start raining pieces of all the satellites we've sent into orbit over the past decades? It's bound to happen, given all the space-station scrap metal and lost tools collecting up there. Wouldn't my human-diamond bullet just add to the flotsom or knock some inoffensive meteor off course? Wouldn't I have to launch it from Cape Canaveral to get it safely to the outer limits of our universe? Nah, that's too expensive and too vain of a plan for me. I've got it. Maybe I can get one of my deer-hunting cousins to funnel my ashes into ammo for a 20-gauge and shoot me into a couple of tall trees that can easily withstand the assault. If I'm going to become a permanent part of nature when I pass on, I think I'd like the view from there, and the squirrels would be great company.

On the spiritual side, I'm rather proud of the members of my religion (Judaism) for arguing successfully for reversal of the hallakic ban on organ donation. Hold on, I can sense the puzzled look on your face. What Jews really object to is keeping a body around longer than sundown of the next day after the person, ah, expires. I can understand the reason for the rabbinic sages devising this rule in ancient Judea -- it was just more practical. And, they didn't want the Chosen People to imitate the Egyptians in any way -- especially not in the preservation of human remains. But the basis for hasty burial of an intact body was/is that the Almighty needs all your original parts to (eventually) resurrect you. Now the invisible imp that sits on my shoulder has always argued that my Creator is smart enough to reassemble me from ashes, if necessary. I can't seem to picture Him in a cosmic garage with a tube of glue and tweezers, muttering under His breath as He tries to reassemble me by lamplight. I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The ban on organ donation was reversed because the mitzvah (commandment) of saving a human life trumps the mitzvah of keeping the remains intact. Burying usable organs, a bunch of very smart people figured, was tantamount to burying valuable medical equipment. I agree with that. But neither would I have any peace if I thought I would be shut up, post-organ donation, in what amounts to a fancy Thermos and planted where I can't even fertilize anything. The plain wooden coffins and linen shrouds in which the Conservative and Orthodox of my tribe bury their unembalmed departed are pretty good, as far as non-pollutants go, but I still can't get past the idea of all that wasted land. Nope, I'm afraid donation and cremation is my preference. It's becoming something of a tradition in my family of origin, who have no religious objection to it. I've often told them (only half-jokingly) that I've been so scattered in life that it's only fitting I should be scattered in death. I do like to travel.

Thankfully, I've never had a relative in desperate need of a donated organ, never had a niece or nephew born without a strong heart. And if I had, I would've prayed for someone to sign over the organ that would save or prolong their precious life. If I don't put too much mileage on all my organs before I leave this world -- reuse them, please -- and anything else I leave behind that can make someone else healthier. As for the rest of it -- Bubba, go ahead and take aim for that big oak on the edge of the north forty.

Kvetch: Denny's Octomom Special

This just in: Denny's now has a breakfast special in honor of the Octomoron. You get eight eggs without the sausage, and the guy next to you has to pay your tab.

ARGUMENT: Big Weddings are a Waste of Money

This is really more of a rant, but in case anyone really needs to be persuaded not to spend money they don't have on something as useless as a big party -- here goes nothing.
On weddings:
Young people (brides, especially) have come to confuse The Wedding with The Marriage. In fact, you can predict with amazing accuracy how short the marriage will be based on the outlandish spending of The Princess (or her family) on 'her special day'. I am all for a woman having a 'special day' but it's ridiculous to go into debt for something that's overwith in one day, especially when you don't yet have a HOUSE. Thankfully, the groom's family is generally left out of the really expensive stuff. I suppose this is because he is generally assumed to be The Main Provider and he'll have to pay for necessities like Food and Shelter. Whereas this has changed somewhat -- dual incomes are more necessary than ever -- it's still assumed that if one of the pair stays home (at least temporarily) to raise a child, it'll be the mom. Back to Bridezilla. Since weddings have largely become celebrations of The Princess and her beauty, the groom is sometimes relegated to the background, where (my guess is) he is content to be. Unless he's a closet queen, he is unlikely to care what flowers are displayed or whether the chuppah is suitable for framing. He only has to show up in a tux and bring the ring.
I found it hilariously inappropriate when I was told that a friend's future daughter-in-law had presented him a 'bill' for half of what 'her special day' was going to cost. He politely declined, earning her eternal resentment, even though he had given his son a very expensive education, which would, we assume, be used to support The Princess and her future children at some point. Never mind that my friend had gone into debt to give his son this fine education (B.A. and M.A.) so that the son would go into the working world without a monkey of debt on his back. Never mind that paying for his son's advanced education means he will probably not retire as early or as easily. That gift is something that cannot be taken away, and will not be wasted -- something much more important than what amounts to a big party (so the bride can show her friends how valued she is). By the way, from what I've heard, she is a rather nice girl -- just had her perspective warped by being a guest at too many weddings of her pals, and figuring she had to spend at least in the realm of what their families spent on their 'special days'. People talk, y'know. It just wouldn't do to have Muffy wear her mother's wedding dress, carry a modest bouquet and have punch and cake at the church -- instead of renting a hall and paying a band worthy of a Broadway show. But this girl majored in finance, fahcrissakes. She knows what things like houses and cars and babies cost.
If there's one valuable thing that may return with this depressed economy, it's a more realistic way of celebrating marriages. Before the Great Depression, my grandparents were married by a Justice of the Peace, and grandpa bought a tiny gold band (all he could afford) that my grandmother cherished all her life. She never traded in that ring for one with a big diamond. She had the real gem for nearly 50 years, and she was smart enough to know it.

ARGUMENT: Sure, I'll help you, Nadya!

The Octomoron has done what we all could've guessed -- created a website to beg for money. Mind you, nobody would mind helping her children/victims, but there's no way I'll do it through her site. I'm rather glad that it's come to light that Nadya Suleman has her six older children sleeping on dirty mattresses on the floor -- and living in a two bedroom house with a dirt yard and broken windows. CPS can now, at least, get involved and help protect them, since their mother will not, and their grandmother is so disgusted with what her daughter has done that she has washed her hands of her.
I posted a pledge on her site to help (in my own limited way) with her six older children if she would put the new eight up for adoption (possibly in groups of two or three) so they will be loved and nurtured by families desperate to have children (disabled or not). In that way, the octuplets could have a blood relation and sibling close by, and possibly keep in touch with the others as they grow up. If Nadya truly wants to prove herself worthy of the name, "mother", she will put her children's best interest first, and do what is right -- by all of them.

RANT: More on the Moron with Octuplets

February 6th http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29038814/?gt1=43001Well, the Octomoron has finally sat down for an interview -- more Botoxed and limp-plumped than we've seen since Joan Rivers -- and says she wanted "just one more baby, not eight." Right. She had six embryos implanted, because "that was what was available," and "they're my children." Does that mean she wanted the rest of them to die? or just didn't care? If Nadya Suleman really wanted ALL of her frozen embryos to have a chance at life, she would've had them implanted two or three at a time, not all at once. But she would've had to become a baby-making machine for a few years to do it, and it wouldn't have made such a big news splash. Guess it was worth the risk of having them born blind, deformed or otherwise disabled to try it all at once. Next, who is the dumbass 'doctor' who implanted all these embryos, and is he willing to pay some of their medical costs? Is he off the hook just because this was a 'legal' procedure? What about the father/sperm donor? If he knows this woman and agreed to father her 'embryos' -- does he give up his parental responsibilities? Nadya Suleman's own parents have disowned her for this irresponsible act -- one of the few sources of emotional (if not financial) support she had left. If this case was REALLY about the best interest of her children, she'd never have gone through with it this way. Whereas I don't believe a woman should ever be forced to carry through a pregnancy she doesn't want -- neither do I believe in abusing one's right to reproduce. If nothing else, this case should spark debate on changing legislation for fertility doctors. If one cannot even provide for one's existing children, one should not have the option of having embryos implanted if the resulting children will have to be raised at the taxpayers' expense. These innocent victims of their mother's attention-getting fantasy should have been adopted out as embryos if she really wanted them all to have a chance at life. But it's still not too late -- she can give them to childless couples who have the sincere desire to love and raise them, not gain fame from their very existence.

RANT: We CAN pay for Healthcare in the U.S.

Here are some basics every human being needs in order to survive: Air, water, food, shelter, medical care, emotional care, knowledge. Some can be gotten for free; some need to be paid for or provided. Apparently the people to whom we hand over our taxes just don't get that. Instead, we get to pay for parks, bridges (to nowhere, sometimes), street lights, museums, etc. These same funds should pay for OUR BASIC NEEDS before they pay for ANYTHING ELSE. PERIOD.

Hasn't it occurred to the noodniks in Washington that one big reason doctors have a malpractice insurance crisis -- and we have lawsuit abuse in this country because we don't have basic healthcare paid for out of our taxes? What a change we'd see -- what a reduction in frivolous lawsuits with awards in the millions of dollars, if our medical care was initially paid for? Why are we being taxed to hell and back if it isn't benefitting us where we need it most?

We've been brainwashed into believing that our taxes would all go up to 50% if we funded healthcare nationally, but it isn't so. It wouldn't have to be if our tax dollars went for our care first, before all the pork. We've also been told our employers would take away our healthcare benefits if it became nationalized. So what? They could afford to pay more workers if that happened. Why should one's medical care be tied to their job, anyway? Are employed people more entitled to life and health than those who have a bad run of luck or lose their jobs? Yeah, yeah, this may sound like commie talk to some, but so many of our programs are already nationalized (schools, parks, libraries, etc.) that it's ridiculous that a PRINCIPAL NEED IN LIFE is completely ignored this way. Is the U.S. just too pea-brained to realize we can DEMAND this of our legislators or vote them the hell out?

We've already started a movement to provide healthcare to children. Tell me, who takes care of healthy children when their parents are disabled in an accident or get cancer and can't pay for treatment? WE do, as taxpayers, somehow. Why not just provide healthcare to everyone OUT OF OUR TAXES and cut out unnecessary programs that only a select few of us use? I don't know about you, but I'd gladly do without a space program or a funded study of bears in the wild if we had a healthcare system that worked.

I'm not saying a plan like NHS in Britian is a perfect model for us -- I know many Brits who rely on it for the basics but go to a private doctor for 'extras' because they can afford it. I have to wait in line for non-emergency care in the U.S. too, unless I go to a doc-in-the-box. In this country, even a poor illegal alien can walk into a hospital and get her baby delivered, courtesy of us middle-class 'worker bee' citizens who pay taxes -- yet we can't get the same free treatment, even if we're citizens. A prison inmate could get in line before me for a heart transplant -- and I'd have to help pay for it. Meanwhile our 'servants' -- our elected Representatives and Senators, get the best of care (on our dime, too) but we don't.

We have too many lawyers filing too many lawsuits that take too long to settle because we have not demanded a working healthcare system. People are often forced to file bankruptcy because they can't pay for their treatment (or their kids'), then the hospitals write it off -- and we who contribute to the tax rolls end up paying for it. Our healthcare should be paid for before any Bank bailout, before any Wall Street bailout, before any Auto Company bailout. Why is that so hard to understand?

Doctors, who naturally want a financial return on their hard-won education, and pharma companies are paying lobbyists to keep the status quo. I know several foreign doctors who would be glad to work at a lower rate in Podunk, Iowa to help pay off their medical school debt, and that would cost us less. I also know several docs who wouldn't have gone into the profession if not for the outstanding financial rewards. We won't necessarily lose the best and brightest doctors if we 'go national'. A certain amount of pro bono work is required of lawyers -- why not doctors? Pharmceuticals are kept at a high price -- yes, to fund the development -- but countries with nationalized healthcare seem to do pretty well preventing diseases with the drugs they have. Has it also occurred to our genius statesmen that they'd be able to outlaw dangerous substances such as cigarettes if disease prevention was a central part of our healthcare plan?
British doctors can actually get bonuses for getting folks off cigarettes. Imagine that -- being rewarded for helping a smoker break his addiction, so he'll end up costing the system less.

Mr. Obama, I'm glad healthcare is at the top of your list... and I'm glad you're demanding more transparency with our legislators when it comes to lobbyists. Their own re-election should depend on it.