Rachel v Rand

I never thought I would say these words!  But sometimes the truth, as painful as it is, must be stated.
OK, deep breath......Rachel was wrong.  I know, I know--I worship the ground she walks on, but the Rand Paul interview was a low point, in my opinion, and I really think she compounded the issue last night.
Rand Paul is an extremely intelligent, articulate....Libertarian.  And Rachel is an extremely intelligent, articulate...NOT Libertarian.  They had a great discussion about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but as I watched the interview, it became clear to me that Rachel just wanted to win the argument.  She lost journalistic focus and perspective, forced herself into a corner, and just flat out tried every way she knew to win the argument.  Except there wasn't a win or lose position to be had; if anything, the viewers were the winners because they were observing a great conversation between two smart people.  It's so rare that the viewers of television are allowed to witness an "argument" that doesn't involve people shouting over each other, not listening to each other, or with a "moderator" trying to stick their nose in.  That didn't happen the other night, and I for one appreciated the fact that I was able to see both perspectives, which was as educational as it was refreshing.  So, kudos to Rachel and Rand for giving that to me.
But here's the thing.  Rand Paul is an honest-to-goodness Libertarian , and believes in limited government.  And bless him for his beliefs!  When asked, he said, many times and in many different ways, that he's against discrimination in all forms, would not belong to or support clubs that discriminated, and would not abide discrimination in entities that received government support.   I believe him.  He's not a racist.  However, he also said that government has no place in regulating who a business owner does business with.  As repugnant as that may sound to someone who is not a Libertarian, he's staying true to his Libertarian beliefs.  And Rachel was repulsed.  Her basic beliefs and philosophies are not the same as his, pure and simple.  THIS was when she lost focus and just tried to convince Rand Paul that he was wrong, and she was right.  Big mistake.  Instead of going off the first night about violence (the Lunch Counter Demonstrations), and the second night about the right of government to regulate things involving public safety--neither of which had anything to do with Rand Paul's positions, she should have stopped.  She should have listened to me--I was shouting a question for her to ask!
Rachel should have asked Rand if it was also the right of each and every citizen to rise up and tell that business owner that they were wrong to discriminate against others?  Non-violently, of course.  Picket that business person until the cows come home, make it uncomfortable for others to do business there, whatever--was it the right of people to do this?  And Rand would have said yes, it is their right to do this.  Maybe that would have helped Rachel a little, allowed her to breathe and again become the awesome journalist that she is.
There was something else missing from the discussion between Rachel and Rand--a reflection on history.  Why we had to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place, why all the provisions of the Act had to be included, how bad our country was at that point.  Because there were places in this country that were so horrible for minorities to live in, it was dangerous for them.  Physically and mentally and emotionally just awful.  And there weren't enough people standing up saying that it was wrong to treat another human being that way; yes, there were a few, just not enough.  Today we live in a different society (it's not perfect!), and most of us know discrimination is wrong, will speak out against it, and will even go so far as to have Human Relations Commissions in our local communities, to make sure businesses are held accountable.  We've come a long way, and have a long way to go.  But it's easy to forget those old days, to think that it never was as bad as all that.  It's like when young people say they're not feminists, because, well, they're not like those women, completely forgetting that those women were the ones who fought for all the rights they now have the opportunity to take for granted--the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to education, and so on.
It's the history of our country, and the history of humans, that shape our beliefs, and make those pure political beliefs so hard to defend completely.  I think it's easier for Rand Paul to be a Libertarian today than it would have been 55 years ago; I daresay the 21st century man he is would have found some human relations in our country repugnant in the 1950s, making it harder to be a pure Libertarian.  This is not to say what he believes is wrong; the 21st century woman I am says I understand but I just don't agree; I know what humans are capable of, for good and for evil, and I think they need to be held to a very high standard if we are to survive and thrive as a race.  I'm not a Libertarian.
Anyway, I hope I never have to utter "Rachel was wrong" again.  Love her for making me think though.
And one more thing I never thought I'd say--I agree with Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona!  Kyl said, "I think the two of them [Rachel and Rand] were having a bit of a good time having a debate like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you're going to college, but it doesn't have a lot to do with anything."

  

First the Facts, then the Opinion

Here is a fact--it can be found with very little effort here and here and any number of places on the web, or in actual print books.  I encourage you to do some reading on your own; while your opinions may not change, at least you will have some knowledge of historical events.
This is the fact:  The Catholic Church has not always been against abortion.  I repeat: The Catholic Church has not always been against abortion.  They have dithered, changed their collective mind a couple of times, but it's only been recently (in human terms) that they have been so forcefully against it.  In fact, it was only in 1869 that Pope Pius IX declared the punishment for abortion was excommunication.  What's further of interest to me is that it wasn't until 1917 that another pope said doctors and nurses who took part in abortions could be excommunicated.  AND, it wasn't until 1974 that the Catholic Church determined life began at conception.
So what, you might ask?  Well, I think I'm going to ask that they reconsider these new decisions.  I mean, it's only been 141 years that this most recent opinion has been in place, and maybe it's time to take a step back, breathe, and decide really what the churches' priorities truly should be.  You know, in light of recent history and all.
Because kids have been, and are, being abused by priests.  And those priests have been moved, relocated, "rehabilitated", pushed on, looked over, and well......certainly NOT excommunicated.
But recently, in Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmstead excommunicated...a nun.  Wow, you might say, she must have done something really, really bad if she's been excommunicated and all those pedophile priests were not.  What was her heinous crime?
Mercy Sister McBride was excommunicated for "allowing" a woman to have an abortion in her hospital.  This woman, a mother of 5, was dying from pulmonary hypertension.  Her doctor advised her to have an abortion, and she agreed with this advice.  Sister McBride was on call as a member of the hospital's ethics committee, and she was part of a group of people, including the doctor and patient, who decided an abortion was the best option to save the life of the critically ill woman.  A critically ill woman with 5 children at home.
I cannot pretend to know the feelings of each member of this group of people, but I think I can safely say the decision was not made lightly, nor in haste, nor was it an easy decision.  But ultimately, the woman and her healthcare provider decided it was the right one, and that should be that.
Unless you're Mercy Sister McBride.  Then you're kicked out of your church.  Right NOW.  Because.  Because the Bishop didn't think you could be "rehabilitated" or relocated or whatever.  The Bishop thought you were a horrible, heinous, menace to.......................well, not to the woman or her 5 children who needed her..........and probably not to her husband...........and probably not to the family or friends of the woman........but a dreadful, wicked person who ruined the lives of  children,  senior citizens, those who think they have a right to judge.
After careful thought, here is my letter:

  Dear Pope,

Please excommunicate pedophile priests who destroy the lives of children.
Immediately.
That is all.  
Thank you.
Gale
P.S.  I suggest you hold on to the nuns; they are the ones making you look good these days.   Especially Mercy Sister McBride.

Have You Had "THE Talk" with your...

...parents yet?????  I know, I know, it can be awkward and icky and embarrassing, but you owe it to your...parents...to pass along all your information about how to prevent STDs and HIV/AIDS.  Yes, you do, especially if they are new to the dating scene, or have been out of "the sexual loop" for a while.  They may be experimenting, and have the ridiculous idea that it "can't happen to them".  There ARE resources available, and trust me, you are not alone.  Time did a great job covering this issue just a couple of years ago.
But it bears repeating, and I can be glib about it, or funny, but it's a serious matter.  Older people DO have sex, and they DO NOT always think of the consequences.  Why, you ask, am I bringing this up now?  Well, the ABC show Brothers & Sisters had a terrific story line last night about just this thing.  Uncle Saul, who has recently revealed he's gay, was talking to his nephew and his nephew's husband about getting tested for HIV/AIDS--actually, he was avoiding the subject, and they were trying to help him understand that it's a regular part of their medical checkups to be tested.  Once a year, no fuss, no muss.  Uncle Saul did not want to talk about it even in this safe environment, and denied having had sex "since the stone age".  Sort of like a graying teenager.
But I loved this story line for more than the "Sex Talk for Seniors" moment; the show gently reminded us all that HIV/AIDS is still out there, it still demands our attention, and with certain precautions, it is a controllable disease.    I also loved the little bit of Gay History that was thrown in; a reminder that in the not-so-distant past, people had to hide who they were in order to survive, physically and mentally.  That hiding lead to a LOT of unhealthy behavior, least of which was high percentage of alcoholism and drug abuse in the gay community, and most devastatingly, the AIDS epidemic.
It makes me so sad that it's still so unsafe in this world to be who you really are.  So, thanks ABC  for tackling such a subject.  Thank you to all my friends and family, across the sexual spectrum, for being who you are and accepting those you don't even necessarily understand.  Your one voice, your one hug, your one listening ear...it all helps.  And some day, maybe we can all be grownups about sex.

More Springtime Yard Art

THERE IS NEW YARD ART!!!!