Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
All Creatures Great and Ill
I just returned home from an erand, but the trip is the important part. As it was timed, I had just enough road to get me through one story on NPR. The story struck me not only in its content, but also in that it brought a host of other recent stories to a focal point in my mind. I'm not sure how to write this smoothly, so bear with a series of digressions as we go along.
The NPR piece was on the advancements of veterinary medicine. The lead in case study was about a man and his goose--Boswell. Boswell it turns out has had a bad run at being a goose. While many geese can live for decades, Boswell has suffered from cancer. This story might have ended with Christmas dinner, but not so for Boswell. This goose has received surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and asundry related medical care to the tune of $20,000. No, I mean that many zeros: $20,000. Boswell's owner--err, human companion--paid $8 for him at a feed store. I don't mean this for shock value, stay with me.
Boswell's story reminded of something I thought I remembered glancing past in today's New York Times. Upon returning home I retrieved the paper and sure enough there it was--whereas the New York Times prints ALL the news that's fit to distort, I hadn't taken time to read the article originally--an editorial piece of Spain's recent legislative action to grant legal rights to apes.
Then I thought of my employee who has missed a not-insignificant amount of work over the past several months to care for his ailing cat which is almost as old as he is, and has required repeated surgery as of late. I thought of the pet sitter who listed for me the elaborate ritual of preparing the wards meals and the delicacy of providing the dog enough bed space. I thought of the veterinarian who advised me that whereas my dog may have food allergies, she advised a diet of duck and potato (at least it wasn't goose!).
Now, a post to this blog in the distant past reflected on the unique importance of dogs, and indeed there seems to be some scientific proof of this. I have heard it reported that dogs seem not to replace human companionship, but rather to complement them in unique ways. For example, studies show that during periods of extreme stress a dog can serve to lower one's blood pressure, where no human can: not a spouse, child, or friend.
Back then we go to Boswell. I clearly have a different view of animals than those who would give them legal rights, spend $20,000 to care for an ailing goose, or feed their dog a gourmet diet of duck and potato. I love dogs and see their value, but that value comes precisely from their nature as serving the utilitarian needs of their owners--err, human companions. But, I think there is a larger point to illustrate here on social evolution.
In the story of Boswell, the reporter noted that many pet owners--err, human companions-- find it "emotionally distressing to learn that treatments exist for their pets that lie beyond their means." In other words, not everyone has 20 grand to drop on a goose who's--well, you know-- is cooked. Where have I heard this kind of thing before?
Mark my words, some day, some where a charasmatic politician will decry the suffering of "hard working Americans" who are forced to watch pets die because they cannot afford to treat them for an ever growing range of dreadful ailments. At that time it will surely be up to the government to guarantee everyone's "right" to veterinarian care. The financial and emotional burden to families--nay, to children--will simply be too unfair for the richest nation on earth to continue to ignore.
If this seems like a bridge too far then I have achieved my objective. This should sound crazy. Every monstrous encroachment of government into people's lives that has come to be taken for granted as status quo would have appeared far-fetched and absurd before the change had started. Piece by piece, year after year, campaign after campaign, these absurdities get wittled away until they become a way of life. Just as someday, we will think it barbaric that anyone would ever have euthenized a 20 year old cat dying of feline leukemia. Shouldn't the wealthy sacrifice just a little so that valued animals can go on? Isn't it only fair?
The NPR piece was on the advancements of veterinary medicine. The lead in case study was about a man and his goose--Boswell. Boswell it turns out has had a bad run at being a goose. While many geese can live for decades, Boswell has suffered from cancer. This story might have ended with Christmas dinner, but not so for Boswell. This goose has received surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and asundry related medical care to the tune of $20,000. No, I mean that many zeros: $20,000. Boswell's owner--err, human companion--paid $8 for him at a feed store. I don't mean this for shock value, stay with me.
Boswell's story reminded of something I thought I remembered glancing past in today's New York Times. Upon returning home I retrieved the paper and sure enough there it was--whereas the New York Times prints ALL the news that's fit to distort, I hadn't taken time to read the article originally--an editorial piece of Spain's recent legislative action to grant legal rights to apes.
Then I thought of my employee who has missed a not-insignificant amount of work over the past several months to care for his ailing cat which is almost as old as he is, and has required repeated surgery as of late. I thought of the pet sitter who listed for me the elaborate ritual of preparing the wards meals and the delicacy of providing the dog enough bed space. I thought of the veterinarian who advised me that whereas my dog may have food allergies, she advised a diet of duck and potato (at least it wasn't goose!).
Now, a post to this blog in the distant past reflected on the unique importance of dogs, and indeed there seems to be some scientific proof of this. I have heard it reported that dogs seem not to replace human companionship, but rather to complement them in unique ways. For example, studies show that during periods of extreme stress a dog can serve to lower one's blood pressure, where no human can: not a spouse, child, or friend.
Back then we go to Boswell. I clearly have a different view of animals than those who would give them legal rights, spend $20,000 to care for an ailing goose, or feed their dog a gourmet diet of duck and potato. I love dogs and see their value, but that value comes precisely from their nature as serving the utilitarian needs of their owners--err, human companions. But, I think there is a larger point to illustrate here on social evolution.
In the story of Boswell, the reporter noted that many pet owners--err, human companions-- find it "emotionally distressing to learn that treatments exist for their pets that lie beyond their means." In other words, not everyone has 20 grand to drop on a goose who's--well, you know-- is cooked. Where have I heard this kind of thing before?
Mark my words, some day, some where a charasmatic politician will decry the suffering of "hard working Americans" who are forced to watch pets die because they cannot afford to treat them for an ever growing range of dreadful ailments. At that time it will surely be up to the government to guarantee everyone's "right" to veterinarian care. The financial and emotional burden to families--nay, to children--will simply be too unfair for the richest nation on earth to continue to ignore.
If this seems like a bridge too far then I have achieved my objective. This should sound crazy. Every monstrous encroachment of government into people's lives that has come to be taken for granted as status quo would have appeared far-fetched and absurd before the change had started. Piece by piece, year after year, campaign after campaign, these absurdities get wittled away until they become a way of life. Just as someday, we will think it barbaric that anyone would ever have euthenized a 20 year old cat dying of feline leukemia. Shouldn't the wealthy sacrifice just a little so that valued animals can go on? Isn't it only fair?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Follow-Ups
To revise and extend my remarks on a few recent posts:
A Nod:
I was reminded over the holiday weekend that my observance of the cultural differences between the American West and other regions of the country truly does have very deep historical roots. The example at hand is women's suffrage. Wyoming was the first state in the union to provide the franchise regardless of sex, and this occurred in 1890 when Wyoming became a state (but the right had been there at the territorial level since 1869). Three years later Colorado became the second state, and the first in which a full vote of the people (that is the men) extended the right to women. Idaho and Utah followed shortly thereafter. It is important to note that this extension of individual liberty happened in the west a full 30 years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote nationwide. And of course my native Montana elected a woman to Congress in 1916, four years before most women in the country could vote!
Now consider the contrast with the South. While the 19th amendment was adopted in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify it until 1969, Georgia and Louisiana in 1970, North Carolina until 1971 and Mississippi until 1984. It is telling to realize that these Southern states did not think it was worth endorsing a woman's right to vote until 100 years after Western states had begun extending the franchise.
Ego:
It's official: Senator Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco. Yip, yip, yip.
Fourth:
Yesterday Senator McCain was here in Denver and a local radio remarked that McCain was making a lot of hay out of Sen. Obama's energy positions. When it comes to energy, Sen. Obama's slogan should be "No We Can't," went the line. Nationally the GOP has run its first ad on the energy topic, and a lot of commentators seem to agree that it is a potentially powerful issue for the Republicans this fall. Not surprisingly it is something to be "For." For expanding access to domestic oil and gas production, for building nuclear power plants, etc. When Senator Obama has to be the candidate saying "no, no, no," the issue favors McCain. Hopefully Sen. McCain finds additional contrasts that force Obama into the "No We Can't" column.
A Nod:
I was reminded over the holiday weekend that my observance of the cultural differences between the American West and other regions of the country truly does have very deep historical roots. The example at hand is women's suffrage. Wyoming was the first state in the union to provide the franchise regardless of sex, and this occurred in 1890 when Wyoming became a state (but the right had been there at the territorial level since 1869). Three years later Colorado became the second state, and the first in which a full vote of the people (that is the men) extended the right to women. Idaho and Utah followed shortly thereafter. It is important to note that this extension of individual liberty happened in the west a full 30 years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote nationwide. And of course my native Montana elected a woman to Congress in 1916, four years before most women in the country could vote!
Now consider the contrast with the South. While the 19th amendment was adopted in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify it until 1969, Georgia and Louisiana in 1970, North Carolina until 1971 and Mississippi until 1984. It is telling to realize that these Southern states did not think it was worth endorsing a woman's right to vote until 100 years after Western states had begun extending the franchise.
Ego:
It's official: Senator Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco. Yip, yip, yip.
Fourth:
Yesterday Senator McCain was here in Denver and a local radio remarked that McCain was making a lot of hay out of Sen. Obama's energy positions. When it comes to energy, Sen. Obama's slogan should be "No We Can't," went the line. Nationally the GOP has run its first ad on the energy topic, and a lot of commentators seem to agree that it is a potentially powerful issue for the Republicans this fall. Not surprisingly it is something to be "For." For expanding access to domestic oil and gas production, for building nuclear power plants, etc. When Senator Obama has to be the candidate saying "no, no, no," the issue favors McCain. Hopefully Sen. McCain finds additional contrasts that force Obama into the "No We Can't" column.
Friday, July 4, 2008
What then are we fourth?
This July 4th: Independence Day is one of the unusual ones spent at home. By coincidence it has been my tradition to travel--often abroad--over this holiday weekend. Because I have been a student of politics since I was old enough to know what government was, and because I believe the day means more than a day to cook brats on the grill, I spent the day 1) working (what could be more American than that?), 2) reading Friedman, and 3) pondering the state of our politics... imagine!
We seem to have one political party led by Senator Obama which is FOR a lot of very troubling things, and another which seems to be FOR not much of anything. On this fourth, let us consider what we ought to be for.
Senator Obama is increasingly troubling to me. I have moved from a backbench admirer to an increasingly alarmed opponent. He brazenly showed up in Colorado Springs the other day--brazenly because the Springs is the theocratic stronghold of Dr. James Dobson and his brotherly band of bloviating bigots, as well as the United States Air Force Academy, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson Air Force Base, and countless other conservative bedrocks. While in the Springs, I understand, the good Senator proposed compulsary national service. A student I heard interviewed first hand expressed the view that national service was "honorable" and that "requiring" it while "compensating" participants would lead to a better country. George Orwell couldn't have written anything more absurd. As 1984 says, "compulsary is voluntary."
Of course Mr. Obama is also for nationalized medicine. Some may think the current state of economic affairs has changed the dynamic and necessitated government intervention in healthcare. Unfortunately liberals have been making this argument for more than 30 years. Indeed Sen. Kennedy argued for universal, government mandated healthcare when he ran for president in 1979. Everything old is new again.
In contrast Republicans or by extension, conservatives, don't seem to be FOR anything. They are against abortion, against taxation, against gay marriage, against social medicine, against immigration, and against "pork barrel spending." Now, I am aware that every "against" has a corresponding "for". Conservatives could just as easily be described as "for" the unborn, for low taxes, for marriage restrictions, for status quo medicine, for border security, and for budgetary restraint, but this rings hollow. When all the options on the table are proposed by one party and the other party simply stands against them, we have a crystal clear dichotomy in our politics. Americans tend to be FOR things.
Perhaps the only exception to this rule is a guiding light. Republicans are arguably for defeating terrorism. And it is upon this that I think we need to build a new agenda.
As I have learned more about the political tradition in which I place myself, I become more comfortable describing myself as a "Goldwater Republican." Considering the man lost in one of the worst landslides in electoral history, I am aware of this dubious identification. Nevertheless, we have good role model in Mr. Goldwater. None other than John McCain once said of him, "America, the only nation ever founded in the name of liberty, never had a more ardent champion of liberty than Barry Goldwater. Simply put, Barry Goldwater was in love with freedom."
Barry Goldwater advocated freedom consistently and at all cost. He famously observed that, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," and bravely observed that, "the income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government," while also defiantly stating that, "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
The Supreme Court recently confirmed by an all-too-close vote that Americans are free to bear arms and defend their homes. The proper way forward for Republicans is to boldly embrace the freedom agenda. Freedom abroad may require military action to catalyze nacent movements as we disarm violent foes. Freedom at home provides the coherent narrative so lacking today. Freedom to invest, free of confiscatory taxation. Free to live as one chooses. Free to learn in the best schools. Free to offer the best product at the best price. Free to protect oneself. Free to conduct oneself in one's home. Free to entertain oneself in the manner of one's choosing. Free to pursue happiness in one's own way.
Being against things is the conservative nature. It is also a loser. Being for freedom can sometimes be too etherial, but when given proper context and truly championed, it is still the greatest expression of the American Spirit.
Go forth and be "for" on this fourth!
We seem to have one political party led by Senator Obama which is FOR a lot of very troubling things, and another which seems to be FOR not much of anything. On this fourth, let us consider what we ought to be for.
Senator Obama is increasingly troubling to me. I have moved from a backbench admirer to an increasingly alarmed opponent. He brazenly showed up in Colorado Springs the other day--brazenly because the Springs is the theocratic stronghold of Dr. James Dobson and his brotherly band of bloviating bigots, as well as the United States Air Force Academy, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson Air Force Base, and countless other conservative bedrocks. While in the Springs, I understand, the good Senator proposed compulsary national service. A student I heard interviewed first hand expressed the view that national service was "honorable" and that "requiring" it while "compensating" participants would lead to a better country. George Orwell couldn't have written anything more absurd. As 1984 says, "compulsary is voluntary."
Of course Mr. Obama is also for nationalized medicine. Some may think the current state of economic affairs has changed the dynamic and necessitated government intervention in healthcare. Unfortunately liberals have been making this argument for more than 30 years. Indeed Sen. Kennedy argued for universal, government mandated healthcare when he ran for president in 1979. Everything old is new again.
In contrast Republicans or by extension, conservatives, don't seem to be FOR anything. They are against abortion, against taxation, against gay marriage, against social medicine, against immigration, and against "pork barrel spending." Now, I am aware that every "against" has a corresponding "for". Conservatives could just as easily be described as "for" the unborn, for low taxes, for marriage restrictions, for status quo medicine, for border security, and for budgetary restraint, but this rings hollow. When all the options on the table are proposed by one party and the other party simply stands against them, we have a crystal clear dichotomy in our politics. Americans tend to be FOR things.
Perhaps the only exception to this rule is a guiding light. Republicans are arguably for defeating terrorism. And it is upon this that I think we need to build a new agenda.
As I have learned more about the political tradition in which I place myself, I become more comfortable describing myself as a "Goldwater Republican." Considering the man lost in one of the worst landslides in electoral history, I am aware of this dubious identification. Nevertheless, we have good role model in Mr. Goldwater. None other than John McCain once said of him, "America, the only nation ever founded in the name of liberty, never had a more ardent champion of liberty than Barry Goldwater. Simply put, Barry Goldwater was in love with freedom."
Barry Goldwater advocated freedom consistently and at all cost. He famously observed that, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," and bravely observed that, "the income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government," while also defiantly stating that, "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
The Supreme Court recently confirmed by an all-too-close vote that Americans are free to bear arms and defend their homes. The proper way forward for Republicans is to boldly embrace the freedom agenda. Freedom abroad may require military action to catalyze nacent movements as we disarm violent foes. Freedom at home provides the coherent narrative so lacking today. Freedom to invest, free of confiscatory taxation. Free to live as one chooses. Free to learn in the best schools. Free to offer the best product at the best price. Free to protect oneself. Free to conduct oneself in one's home. Free to entertain oneself in the manner of one's choosing. Free to pursue happiness in one's own way.
Being against things is the conservative nature. It is also a loser. Being for freedom can sometimes be too etherial, but when given proper context and truly championed, it is still the greatest expression of the American Spirit.
Go forth and be "for" on this fourth!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
We're gonna need a bigger ego containment vessel
Rumors around Denver are that Barack Obama is preparing to deliver his nomination acceptance, not at the sight of the Democratic National Convention: the Pepsi Center, but rather across the river at Invesco at Mile High. The former is the home court of the Nuggets and Avalanche and seats about 22,000 people. The latter is home to the Broncos and seats about 80,000. Clearly Mr. Obama cannot be limited to a mere 22,000 member audience. Someone of his great oratorical magnificence, someone for whom house wives will faint on command, someone that can say anything and mean nothing. We're gonna need a bigger building! Let the hew and cry go out: more space before the ego kills us all!
I just hope I can get home without a full body search. Egads.
I just hope I can get home without a full body search. Egads.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
I Propose a Toast...
Progress is a hard thing to measure. Some people who would love to take the country back to the '60's deceptively call themselves "Progressives." Progress in Iraq is an even more bedevilling concept, given the political rancor than has predominated the discussion of that particular struggle. But now we have what is in my humble opinion a truly worthwhile metric. McClatchy Newspapers reports today that "alcohol is flowing again in Iraq." To take a twist on an old Benjamin Franklin quote: beer is proof that Allah loves us and wants us to be happy.
The article sites the example of Saif, a 19 year old Iraqi Christian who owns 4 liquor stores in Baghdad. Several times Saif's stores have been attacked and bombed. Each time he has repainted, rebuilt, and reopened. At the hardest times his businesses were shut down for weeks or more at a time, and only open for a few hours on the good days. Now, he maintains hours from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Business is booming.
Then there is the story of Abo Do'aa:
Abo Do'aa is a Muslim Iraqi in his 40s who travels more than 50 miles from Balad, in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad , to Sadoon Street in downtown Baghdad to buy liquor. "It's very safe these days, and I can go back to my town even at 2 a.m." , he said. "I came to buy liquor for me and my friends. It's expensive, but we can afford it. We used to drink for a long time just to enjoy ourselves."
If that doesn't bring a tear to every red blooded American's heart, I don't know what would. I say the country that imbibes together, thrives together. Whatever other yard stick used to measure progress in Iraq, I think it behooves us to remember Abo and his friends. Here's to Abo and Saif: Bsithak! (cheers)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
