Until recently, I was leaning, as a matter of course, in favor of Hillary for the next President of the United States. It's not because she's a woman, although the idea of a woman finally being elected to lead the country fills me with excitement and a delightful sense of feminist glee. I've been a supporter of hers because she's a smart, progressive feminist who has significant political experience and because I believe she could repair some of the damage that Bush has done to the country, both on the domestic and foreign policy fronts, during his past two terms in office. With Hillary, I feel like I know generally what to expect from her, and I'm confident it will be 1,000 times better than Bush - which, granted, is not saying much because anything short of a right-wing war-monger (wait, that sounds familiar) would be a vast improvement on the current political situation.
I say that I've been leaning towards her "as a matter of course," because, to be honest, until recently I had not been paying all that much attention to how the election process was progressing on a detailed level. I caught a few debates, noted with mild satisfaction that Hillary was leading in many of the polls, was aware that Obama was sparking more and more positive attention, and was comforted by the complete absence of any viable Republican candidate. I was mildly satisfied and a little curious about what the future would hold if we finally elected a woman. But, I was not excited. I was not focused. I had not looked closely at Obama.
Last night, I saw Hillary's speech after her win in New Hampshire and I was underwhelmed. Maybe she was exhausted, but for whatever reason, she failed to inspire me with either words or passion. Her eyes were so lacking in intensity, she almost looked drugged. She smiled and pumped her arms a few times, but overall, looking at her body language, she was singularly uninspiring. I don't remember anything about what she said other than that she was "grateful" and that in New Hampshire she had "found her voice."
That brought me to a screeching halt. I'm all about women finding their voices, but I expect someone in Hillary's position, with her significant political experience and campaigning for the presidency, to have long since found her voice. I want her strong, clear, and filled with purpose. I don't want her "finding her voice" in the 11th hour like some poor little babe that's been lost in the woods. What does this say about the voice she's had up until now in the White House and in the Senate? And, if this is part of her whole strategy to appear more human by allowing herself to tear up and become relatable as a woman, I think it's another example of how that strategy is misguided. Either she has passion, or she doesn't. Either she is honest and forthright with her beliefs and convictions or she's not. Either she's a fighter, or she's not. Personally, although I found her quite believable and likable during the "tearing up" moment, I don't need to see her cry. I need to see her fighting spirit.
This morning on NPR, I heard Barack Obama speaking about the results in New Hampshire. In addition to being inspiring in terms of his political vision, commitment to positive change, and his ideas for the future, Obama is a candidate who has shown his fighting spirit over and over again, and he has no trouble expressing his voice. Obama has less experience than Hillary, he also has less political baggage and undoubtedly less people he owes something to in Washington. Hillary is more of a known card, Obama is more of a wild card. He has the potential to be an incredible leader that could do truly amazing things for this country, both domestically and in the world arena. He's articulate, smart, passionate, and he appears to have integrity. He also appears to be mobilizing voters and recapturing the imagination of many people who started tuning out around the time everyone started talking about cigars and dress stains and then fled politics altogether in despair and started planning their retirement in Canada, when Bush was elected to a second term.
Obama has unquestionably captured my interest, and I don't think I'm leaning towards Hillary at the moment. I'm more in the middle between the two of them. For a change, quite curious and a little excited about how all of this is going to turn out.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Sunday, November 11, 2007
No Grazing
While having coffee after church today, I met a fascinating woman who does work with women's and children's health in South Africa. She's Swedish and moved to South Africa because she married a South African. Her work in Capetown started off focusing on children's health, but lead her to women's health - because unless the mothers are healthy it's unlikely that the children are. Interestingly, she said that working on women's health leads inevitably to programs to increase the economic self-sufficiency of women.
The starkest example is the AIDs crisis in Africa. One of the highest risk factors for women in Africa is whether they are married. Married women are at an extraordinary risk of contracting HIV because their husbands are using prostitutes or sleeping with other women outside of the marriage and then bringing back sexually transmitted diseases to their wives (and children). Where women are not economically self-sufficient - which is most places in the world - they are trapped. They're dependent on their husbands and feel that they have to stay, even if there's abuse or adultery.
While I was in Cambodia, I saw the same thing. Women from different social classes are separated from one another. The men move between the different classes of women, sleeping with one class outside of marriage, and the other inside of marriage, and passing diseases between them. It's incredible that prostitutes continue to be blamed for the spread of diseases, because it's not them that are spreading it to the wives of the men who buy them. Prostitutes, like wives (and of course they're often both), have limited power over the men that they sleep with. Often times, for example, they are not in a position to insist that a client wears a condom.
Apparently the only country in Africa which has seen a drop in the rate of HIV transmission is Uganda (hopefully Pas, who has done work there, will chime in). My new friend told me that this was because Uganda started a massive public health campaign aimed at curbing concurrent sexual relationships - something which my friend said was more common in Africa than the West (in the West you have lots of sexual partners but their more often one after another, instead of all at the same time). The issue with having multiple concurrent sexual relationships is that if one person in that chain contracts HIV, suddenly you have 4, or 6, or 10 others who contract it almost at the same time. It makes sense that it would spread rapidly under those conditions.
I honestly don't know if this is true, and if you're interested this theory is discussed in depth in a new book called The Invisible Cure, which I plan to get. The slogan of the Ugandan campaign was "No Grazing," as in, if you're eating one dish, don't nibble from others. It was successful because it resonated with both the health workers in Uganda and the population at large.
It's just so shocking that becoming a wife could be the most dangerous thing you could do in terms of your health. But on the other hand, it's not at all surprising that becoming a wife in an unequal partnership could be risky. I think it was Abigail Adams who said that all men would be tyrants if they could. Women have to come together and support one another in becoming economically independent. As the AIDs epidemic demonstrates, women's rights are quite literally a life or death matter.
The starkest example is the AIDs crisis in Africa. One of the highest risk factors for women in Africa is whether they are married. Married women are at an extraordinary risk of contracting HIV because their husbands are using prostitutes or sleeping with other women outside of the marriage and then bringing back sexually transmitted diseases to their wives (and children). Where women are not economically self-sufficient - which is most places in the world - they are trapped. They're dependent on their husbands and feel that they have to stay, even if there's abuse or adultery.
While I was in Cambodia, I saw the same thing. Women from different social classes are separated from one another. The men move between the different classes of women, sleeping with one class outside of marriage, and the other inside of marriage, and passing diseases between them. It's incredible that prostitutes continue to be blamed for the spread of diseases, because it's not them that are spreading it to the wives of the men who buy them. Prostitutes, like wives (and of course they're often both), have limited power over the men that they sleep with. Often times, for example, they are not in a position to insist that a client wears a condom.
Apparently the only country in Africa which has seen a drop in the rate of HIV transmission is Uganda (hopefully Pas, who has done work there, will chime in). My new friend told me that this was because Uganda started a massive public health campaign aimed at curbing concurrent sexual relationships - something which my friend said was more common in Africa than the West (in the West you have lots of sexual partners but their more often one after another, instead of all at the same time). The issue with having multiple concurrent sexual relationships is that if one person in that chain contracts HIV, suddenly you have 4, or 6, or 10 others who contract it almost at the same time. It makes sense that it would spread rapidly under those conditions.
I honestly don't know if this is true, and if you're interested this theory is discussed in depth in a new book called The Invisible Cure, which I plan to get. The slogan of the Ugandan campaign was "No Grazing," as in, if you're eating one dish, don't nibble from others. It was successful because it resonated with both the health workers in Uganda and the population at large.
It's just so shocking that becoming a wife could be the most dangerous thing you could do in terms of your health. But on the other hand, it's not at all surprising that becoming a wife in an unequal partnership could be risky. I think it was Abigail Adams who said that all men would be tyrants if they could. Women have to come together and support one another in becoming economically independent. As the AIDs epidemic demonstrates, women's rights are quite literally a life or death matter.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Rape Conviction Leaves Polygamy Unchallenged
The polygamist Warren S. Jeffs, a prophet for fundamentalist Mormons, was convicted of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year old girl for "orchestrating the marriage of the young girl under duress" back in 2001. The victim testified that she had been forced into a "celestial marriage" (plural marriage) that she did not want, to a cousin that she did not like. Prosecutors argued that Jeffs knew that the forced marriage would lead to "nonconsensual sex," i.e. rape, and the jury agreed.
What's most interesting to me about this case is that it was not about polygamy. Instead of charging Jeffs with polygamy per se, prosecutors went after Jeffs for statutory rape. The conviction is unquestionably positive with respect to its definition of rape. Though the article mentions no allegations of physical force, the jury still found that a rape had occurred based on a lack of consent and/or sex that occurred under duress. Of course, we're dealing with the rape of a minor, and the whole premise of statutory rape assumes a lack of consent on behalf of the minor, so perhaps I'm being too optimistic in terms of applauding the jury for their progressive definition of rape. Not knowing the applicable state law, I don't know whether an adult woman would have received the same level of justice had she been forced into non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
That's one of the most fascinating aspects of rape law: Young women under a certain age are presumed not to consent - in fact, they are legally not allowed to consent - while women over a certain age are presumed to always consent, unless proven otherwise. If your below a certain age, the assumption is that you kept your legs closed; if your over a certain age, the assumption is that you willingly opened them. That's why so much of rape law - which continues to be quite antiquated - focuses on the issue of force. Instead of assuming that it's rape unless there is affirmative evidence of consent, our legal system assumes that it was consensual sex unless there was evidence of force. (Not all states, but many continue to have this assumption at the core of their rape law).
The problem with that is that sex continues to happen in our society in the context of inequality, and the reality of sex for many girls and women is not always, or even usually, an experience of equality. Set against the backdrop of inequality - gender, economic, age etc. - it's ridiculous for our legal system to assume consent when sex happens. At least in the case of minors - who are protected by statutory rape but also denied the ability to consent by that same law - our legal system approaches sex from a more realistic perspective that recognizes at least some of the power issues involved.
The conviction of Jeffs is a victory for the victim and a general victory for women's rights advocates. However, I'm disturbed that Jeffs was not also convicted under the anti-polygamy laws for polygamy. Although there are enclaves of fundamentalist Mormons spread out through the country flagrantly practicing polygamy and its attendant forced, child marriages against the law, the authorities consistently fail to take a stand against polygamy. Instead, the enclaves are allowed to exist relatively unmolested, despite the molestation and abuse that - by many accounts - goes on within those communities.
In America, we don't have to look to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan to find examples of female oppression. It's right here in our own country and appears in many different forms, one of the most blatant examples of which are the fundamentalist Mormon enclaves led by men like Jeffs. In convicting him as an accomplice to statutory rape, our society has taken a step towards protecting the rights of children growing up within those enclaves. However, his conviction for rape leaves the broader issue of polygamy and its implications for the rights of women (in a patriarchal society) unexamined and unchallenged, and offers no clear protection for adult women within those enclaves. To offer protection to all women within those communities, in addition to enforcing the law of statutory rape, the authorities would also need to enforce the laws against polygamy, something which they have thus far been reluctant to do.
What's most interesting to me about this case is that it was not about polygamy. Instead of charging Jeffs with polygamy per se, prosecutors went after Jeffs for statutory rape. The conviction is unquestionably positive with respect to its definition of rape. Though the article mentions no allegations of physical force, the jury still found that a rape had occurred based on a lack of consent and/or sex that occurred under duress. Of course, we're dealing with the rape of a minor, and the whole premise of statutory rape assumes a lack of consent on behalf of the minor, so perhaps I'm being too optimistic in terms of applauding the jury for their progressive definition of rape. Not knowing the applicable state law, I don't know whether an adult woman would have received the same level of justice had she been forced into non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
That's one of the most fascinating aspects of rape law: Young women under a certain age are presumed not to consent - in fact, they are legally not allowed to consent - while women over a certain age are presumed to always consent, unless proven otherwise. If your below a certain age, the assumption is that you kept your legs closed; if your over a certain age, the assumption is that you willingly opened them. That's why so much of rape law - which continues to be quite antiquated - focuses on the issue of force. Instead of assuming that it's rape unless there is affirmative evidence of consent, our legal system assumes that it was consensual sex unless there was evidence of force. (Not all states, but many continue to have this assumption at the core of their rape law).
The problem with that is that sex continues to happen in our society in the context of inequality, and the reality of sex for many girls and women is not always, or even usually, an experience of equality. Set against the backdrop of inequality - gender, economic, age etc. - it's ridiculous for our legal system to assume consent when sex happens. At least in the case of minors - who are protected by statutory rape but also denied the ability to consent by that same law - our legal system approaches sex from a more realistic perspective that recognizes at least some of the power issues involved.
The conviction of Jeffs is a victory for the victim and a general victory for women's rights advocates. However, I'm disturbed that Jeffs was not also convicted under the anti-polygamy laws for polygamy. Although there are enclaves of fundamentalist Mormons spread out through the country flagrantly practicing polygamy and its attendant forced, child marriages against the law, the authorities consistently fail to take a stand against polygamy. Instead, the enclaves are allowed to exist relatively unmolested, despite the molestation and abuse that - by many accounts - goes on within those communities.
In America, we don't have to look to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan to find examples of female oppression. It's right here in our own country and appears in many different forms, one of the most blatant examples of which are the fundamentalist Mormon enclaves led by men like Jeffs. In convicting him as an accomplice to statutory rape, our society has taken a step towards protecting the rights of children growing up within those enclaves. However, his conviction for rape leaves the broader issue of polygamy and its implications for the rights of women (in a patriarchal society) unexamined and unchallenged, and offers no clear protection for adult women within those enclaves. To offer protection to all women within those communities, in addition to enforcing the law of statutory rape, the authorities would also need to enforce the laws against polygamy, something which they have thus far been reluctant to do.
Monday, August 13, 2007
See Sicko Before You Get Sick
I'm sick, which is actually quite apt because I had been planning to post about Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko." I'm one of the lucky members of the privileged class in the United States who was not featured front and center in "Sicko." Not only do I have a well-paying job, I also have health insurance through my job. I even have dental insurance, though all it covers is the cost of a cleaning or two, and since I hate the dentist I rarely take full advantage of it.Under my health insurance plan with Oxford Health care, I'm allowed to choose my primary care physician and I have only a $15 co-pay each time I see her. My plan covers only 30 mental health visits each year (apparently patients are only allowed to be suicidal or clinically depressed for 7 months out of the year and then they have to get over it), but the co-pay is significantly more than for my primary care physician. It costs me $40 each time I see my therapist. It's worth it to me because I'm worth it, but the cost does not escape my notice.
My prescriptions cost me between $10 and $20 under the plan. Thankfully, Ambien is covered. I'm not sure what I would do without my Ambien, but I'm sure life - not to mention me - would not be as pretty. Gardasil, the vaccine against the most common forms of HPV - the sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer - and a drug which Texas made mandatory for girls younger than me - is not covered. However, since I actually care about my reproductive system and because I believe in preventative health care, unlike my insurance company, I paid over $600 out of my own pocket to get myself the vaccine. To my knowledge, I don't have cervical cancer or HPV, and I'm planning to have other sexual partners in the future, so - with the exception of the rather large $600 fee - getting vaccinated was a no-brainer. My plan also does not cover other vaccinations, but because I didn't want to contract Malaria, Typhus, or Hepatitis C when I went to India a few months ago I paid approximately $350 for the pills and shots necessary to protect me during my travels.
Getting back to that bit about having a well-paying job. I would wager that a large section of the American female population does not have $600 lying around to spend on an HPV vaccination, not too mention sleeping pills, travel vaccinations, or for that matter trips to India. Until 3 years ago when I started working as a lawyer, I most didn't either. I also didn't have enough money for health insurance. Shhhh, don't tell my parents. It makes me shiver now to think back on all the potential catastrophes that could have befallen me during my uninsured periods of time, the most recent of which was - gasp - three months ago while I was in between jobs, traveling to foreign countries, flying on airplanes, and braving the traffic of New York on a daily basis. A poor decision, no doubt, but I simply could not stomach the idea of paying $800 to continue my plan in between jobs. It was too outrageous.
Aside from the prescriptions that aren't covered, relatively high mental health costs, and the hazards of limbo-ing in between jobs, for the most part I've been lucky, covered, and had little to complain about with respect to my own health insurance. But, as "Sicko" makes clear, many in America are not so lucky as me. Of course I knew that before I watched the movie. It was not news to me that there are many people in America who don't have insurance, that managed care leaves many dissatisfied, that there's far too little emphasis on preventative care, that the poor suffer the most, and that insurance companies will go to great lengths to deny coverage. I have siblings and friends who's jobs do not provide benefits, and as a lawyer I've worked on insurance cases in the past (and I've hated them).
There were a number of things from the film that were new to me though, including:
1) Universal Health care Exists! It's not impossible. France, England, Canada, and Cuba provide FREE universal health care to everyone, even to non-citizen Americans. It's been 24 hours since I learned this, and I'm still astounded by the implications. I guess a part of me was dimly aware of the fact that other countries provided universal health care, but at least in our country the idea has been painted as a feat too impossible to even imagine. Over and over again we're told that the health care system is rife with problems, that the provision of free care would cost an exorbitant sum, and that privatization is our only hope. Not surprising for a country that views Socialism as anathema.
But, here's a thought: Instead of allowing the CEOs of insurance companies to become billionaires, and instead of allowing insurance companies to employ 4X as many lobbyists as there are congresspeople, why don't we just take that money from the insurance companies and give it to the people who are actually providing the medical care, the doctors? Putting aside the perhaps overly rosy pictures of other nations' health care systems, "Sicko" made me stop and really start thinking about the health care system in which I'm participating. Under our current system, patients aren't winning, and neither are the doctors. The ones making out like bandits are the insurance companies, and that's just wrong. It's also inefficient and misguided.
* Excuse me, I had to go chug some NyQuil. I'm back now. *
2) Rescue Workers From 911 Are Not Receiving Medical Care. I don't know anything about this other than what I saw in the film, but to the extent it's true it is an absolute disgrace. I was not in New York the day the Twin Towers were attacked, but I watched the coverage around the clock of the rescue workers' efforts to locate survivors. I did what I could from far away; I sent money and I donated blood. I cried when I read the stories of the fire fighters and police officers who lost their lives trying to save the lives of others.
The rescue workers who came to the aid of their fellow human beings on 911 were and are still genuine heroes. They're heroes because they saw a need and they jumped in to offer whatever assistance they could despite the terrifying and devastating circumstances. In doing so, they put themselves in grave immediate and future danger, and now, apparently, many are suffering from respiratory and other illnesses that they contracted as a result of the work they did on 911. Worse than that though, is that apparently they are not receiving the medical care that they need for the medical problems they contracted as a result of 911. I find this so shocking and sad that I can't even comprehend it.
I guess really it's no worse than not taking care of the poor and disadvantaged in our society. But, in a sick way I can almost understand how our society can turn a blind eye to the poor (not that it's right, mind you). But, the idea that our society would also turn a blind eye to those that it has labeled as "heroes"? If that's the type of society we have, that treats both its poor and its heroes with so little regard, it's not a society that I can be proud of. Instead, I feel ashamed.
3) Guantanamo Provides Free Universal Health care to It's Detainees: I suppose I'm glad that Guantanamo provides health care to its detainees. That's one positive thing I've heard about Guantanamo. However, in quintessential Michael Moore flair, he demonstrated how absurd it is that 911 rescue workers are receiving worse medical care than alleged members of Al-Qaeda.
Now, I understand that this comparison was made for dramatic effect, but I have to say, it worked. This does not lead me to conclude, however, that we should take the health care away from the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo (many of whom are innocent, but that's the subject of another post). Rather, it leads me to conclude that if we see fit to provide our alleged enemies with health care, shouldn't we see fit to provide all members of our society with at least the same level of care?
* * *
There are more things that I learned from Sicko, but my glands are feeling swollen and sore, my head is feeling swimmy, and the NyQuil is beginning to kick in. I have to go to bed. If you haven't seen the film, go see it and let me know what you think.
What about you? What do you think about our health care system?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Future Fears
I was having a conversation this weekend about Hillary's chances of becoming the next President of the United States. People have strong opinions about her on both sides of the political divide. Personally, I would love to see a woman elected President. However, I don't want a woman elected just because she's a woman; instead, I want the best person for the job.
It seems to me that one of the biggest challenges facing the United States and the greater world right now is how to deal with the threats posed by Muslim extremists. I don't mean to suggest that I'm one with the whole "war on terror" focus of the Bush administration, because I'm not. We are certainly not "at war," at least not in the traditional nation-state versus nation-state kind of way. Instead, we've been dealing with what appears to be a growing movement of extremism intent upon - apparently - destroying our way of life in the United States and the Western World. A movement that, based on the number of suicide bombers they appear to be attracting continually to their fold, may be winning the cultural war.
Why are the extremists winning the cultural war? What makes them able to attract more and more converts to their cause? What makes them able to convince educated young Muslims living middle class lives abroad with their pregnant wives to become suicide bombers?
I think one of the main factors is the vast economic inequality between the United States and the Western world and... pretty much everyone else. We have so much in this country, and I think the people who don't have as much are angry about it. And who wouldn't be? If I was looking in on the United States from the outside, I would want what we have as well. And, I would feel entitled to it because we're all human beings and we all deserve the same things in life.
But, it's not only about the economic inequalities. It's also about religion, or at least part of the motivation given for the attacks is portrayed as religious in nature. I wonder though, if there were not the massive economic divide, if the fundamentalist religious message would still be able to attract followers? If everyone had a decent house, educational and career opportunities in their life, clean drinking water, access to health care, the chance to succeed and practice their own beliefs without fear of discrimination and prejudice, and hope for their children's' futures, would the fundamentalist message still find the ground fertile for the recruitment of suicide bombers?
What's it going to take to make the ground less fertile for their recruitment?
If I'm right - that one of the sources of the extremism is economic inequality - it's going to take a lot more than military or intelligence efforts to stop the extremists. It's going to take a massive cultural and economic shift, and as history has shown, cultural shifts take a long time to happen and economic shifts take even longer. It's also going to take the United States living up it to its ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, and democracy, owning up to its past mistakes, and eliminating it's hypocrisy - something it has failed to do miserably under the current administration.
I don't know if Hillary could lead the nation effectively against the tide of extremism now threatening us. I think she could do a better job than Bush, but since he presents such a low standard to beat, that's an easy thing to say. I haven't been following the debates closely enough to know if there's anyone I think would be better than Hillary, but I'm thinking I should start paying attention.
The situation has been bad for a long time, but I'm afraid that unless the United States changes its course soon, it's going to get a lot worse.
It seems to me that one of the biggest challenges facing the United States and the greater world right now is how to deal with the threats posed by Muslim extremists. I don't mean to suggest that I'm one with the whole "war on terror" focus of the Bush administration, because I'm not. We are certainly not "at war," at least not in the traditional nation-state versus nation-state kind of way. Instead, we've been dealing with what appears to be a growing movement of extremism intent upon - apparently - destroying our way of life in the United States and the Western World. A movement that, based on the number of suicide bombers they appear to be attracting continually to their fold, may be winning the cultural war.
Why are the extremists winning the cultural war? What makes them able to attract more and more converts to their cause? What makes them able to convince educated young Muslims living middle class lives abroad with their pregnant wives to become suicide bombers?
I think one of the main factors is the vast economic inequality between the United States and the Western world and... pretty much everyone else. We have so much in this country, and I think the people who don't have as much are angry about it. And who wouldn't be? If I was looking in on the United States from the outside, I would want what we have as well. And, I would feel entitled to it because we're all human beings and we all deserve the same things in life.
But, it's not only about the economic inequalities. It's also about religion, or at least part of the motivation given for the attacks is portrayed as religious in nature. I wonder though, if there were not the massive economic divide, if the fundamentalist religious message would still be able to attract followers? If everyone had a decent house, educational and career opportunities in their life, clean drinking water, access to health care, the chance to succeed and practice their own beliefs without fear of discrimination and prejudice, and hope for their children's' futures, would the fundamentalist message still find the ground fertile for the recruitment of suicide bombers?
What's it going to take to make the ground less fertile for their recruitment?
If I'm right - that one of the sources of the extremism is economic inequality - it's going to take a lot more than military or intelligence efforts to stop the extremists. It's going to take a massive cultural and economic shift, and as history has shown, cultural shifts take a long time to happen and economic shifts take even longer. It's also going to take the United States living up it to its ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, and democracy, owning up to its past mistakes, and eliminating it's hypocrisy - something it has failed to do miserably under the current administration.
I don't know if Hillary could lead the nation effectively against the tide of extremism now threatening us. I think she could do a better job than Bush, but since he presents such a low standard to beat, that's an easy thing to say. I haven't been following the debates closely enough to know if there's anyone I think would be better than Hillary, but I'm thinking I should start paying attention.
The situation has been bad for a long time, but I'm afraid that unless the United States changes its course soon, it's going to get a lot worse.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Another School Shooting
I just saw this horrific news. A gunman shot 22 people to death at Virginia Tech this morning. It's the deadliest school shooting to have happened in the United States. I am deeply saddened on behalf of the students and others killed and their families.
This is not the Revolutionary War and we do not need standing militias to defend ourselves against the English. How many people have to die before we get rid of the guns?
This is not the Revolutionary War and we do not need standing militias to defend ourselves against the English. How many people have to die before we get rid of the guns?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)