do unto others
i'm kinda confused about the christian-on-trial-in-afghan story. i've read that the christian right-wingers here are enraged and that condi & w, themselves, have tried to explain to those wacky allies of ours that this could be a problem and that they need to understand that we expect them to follow international notions of democracy/freedom of religion. ok, so far, so good. but, what i don't understand, is this...
if they argue that members of our supreme court should never be expected to consider the standards or laws of other nations, where do they get off telling a foreign, constitoutionally sanctioned court how to enforce its laws? how 'bout we teach by example?
non-performance art
If I lived in a condo/co-op and my monthly fees/maintenance payment were being spent on some whim of the board of directors (say, to patrol the tennis courts which I never wanted to build in the first place) and NOT being spent on the basic services (like lighting the crumbling paths from the decaying garage) which, according to the contract, were 'included'... if such happened, I'd get other residents together and we would sue the board for dereliction of duty (or we'd try).
Why can't several scores of millions of American citizens join in a class action suit against the administration for failure to perform (or some such legal sounding claim)? My tax dollars are supposed to go towards the generally agreed upon services of a civilized society - educating children, decent roads, whatever. Why do I risk imprisonment if I refuse to pay taxes which are going to finance things which provide nothing for ANYONE (let alone for me)? Haven't they committed some kind of fraud?! Can't we sue the crooks? If not, why not?
the anti-Bonds (Barry, that is)
Is there really ANYone who doesn't believe that Barry Bonds has been juicing for the past half dozen years (ever since the Mark&Sammy Show)? Has that stopped most people from hoping that he'd hit one into McCovey Cove each and every time he comes to bat? Of course not, this is America where records and winning and being NUMBER ONE matter more than anything. Lost in the conversations about all those who took steriods (including all those who've denied it, against all reason), is mention of the greatest player of this generation of baseballers, a man who chose NOT to juice, despite the fact that this choice probably cost him a slew of records.
Ken Griffey, Jr., unquestionably the most talented player of them all, was well on his way to establishing himself as one of the greatest of all time, but a series of injuries have cost him several seasons worth of playing time. He could have juiced in the interest of speeding his recoveries (can't imagine he'd juice to increase speed or power - how much faster or more powerful could he be?!), but he didn't. And what did his decision NOT to break the law (if not the rules) cost him? Countless homeruns, doubles, stolen bases, RBIs and the goodwill of press and fans alike.
In the USA of the 21st Century, winning at all costs, whether in sports, politics or business, seems to be the only strategy worth rewarding, yet there are people in all of those fields who have chosen NOT to cheat in order to rack up the numbers that, one way or another, will enrich their pockets even as they diminish their souls. Ken Griffey, Jr., should be held up as a paragon of virtue and remembered as a truly great player as much for what he did NOT do as for the still-awesome stats he has managed to put together. I don't know how the Hall of Fame folks will treat Sosa and Bonds (Palmiero should just be forgotten as the most mediocre of all "great sluggers" who benefited from a hypodermic), but I sure hope that Griffey won't be penalized for not having quite the totals he would have, had he chosen to supplement his approved methods of rehabilitation with "juice" just to accelerate the process and, maybe, add a little something to his incredible arsenal of skills.
Something I just read wondered how committed people are to their political preferences - would people change cleaners or doctors. hire/not hire someone depending on political preferences. It reminded me that...
About fifteen years ago, back when I was still happily married, my husband and I gave up trying to conceive a second child and began the process of adopting. Eventually, a young woman selected us as potential parents for her baby, and we met with her AND the father (still her high school boyfriend). They were adorable, promising youngsters who, though quite unsophisticated, had ambitions which included college and careers; she, especially, was clearly determined to enjoy the adventure of her life despite their carelessness, once she had made sure that she had found a good home for her unborn child. She questioned us quite alot but it was difficult to get a sense of what answers she was looking for to fulfill her fantasy of the "good parents" in that "good home."
And then she asked us, if we had a son who, in his teens, told us that he thought he was a homosexual, would we be able to accept it? My husband and I looked at each other and, knowing that I would have an answer already forming, my husband nodded his agreement that I should just answer for us both. So, unsure of what these two kids thought about a subject less frequently discussed then than now, but determined to have my say (even at the risk of losing the child), I explained that I would have no difficulty accepting such at all. That there was NO social "stigma" with which I could imagine having an acceptance issue... unless, of course, my child ever announced he was a Republican.
So... if I were willing to abandon my child for being a Republican, you can bet I'd ditch the cleaners!
For the record... the kids laughed and immediately told us they thought we'd make great parents, the kids' parents' coerced them into getting married and keeping the baby, my marriage broke up and, most importantly, my young adult son is a very liberal democrat!