Living document--is this like, um, a living bra?

By Joseph Walther

Various people, to describe the way we interpret our Constitution, have used two contrasting terms. They are, “originalist view” and “living document view.” U. S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, contrasted them during his speech at the University of Delaware this past Friday evening. Justices Scalia and Thomas are strict “originalists”, while the others, to varying degrees, subscribe to the “living document view.”

There is another view that I call the “duh! view.” No one has mentioned it because I just made it up. And, it’s not at all politically correct. Regardless, it’s out there and I’ll get back to it later.

Here’s an excerpt from our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Just as these words assume absolutes, so does the “originalist view” to our Constitution. We declared ourselves “free” and “independent.” The Constitution laid out the rules that our founders thought would be the best way to ensure our freedoms and independence in perpetuity.

There is an inherent danger associated with declaring truths to be “self-evident.” We assume that everyone, everywhere, thinks the way we do. They don’t. There are a tad more than six billion people currently living on this space rock we call home. Most of them do not enjoy the freedoms that we, in the United States, take for granted. In fact, to a sizeable percentage of them, rights are not unalienable and “life,” “liberty,” and the “pursuit of happiness” are just meaningless words.

It’s a nice, comforting thought to believe that a “Creator” endowed all humans with such “unalienable rights.” It provides a feeling of built-in humility about what we believe and how we act. After all, we didn’t give ourselves these rights; we were born with them. We’re just defending them, not only for ourselves, but also for others who can’t. Yes, very comforting and righteous, indeed.

Speaking for myself, I do not know if a Creator created us, let alone endowed us with rights. I do know this, though. In the natural world, the only rights that ANY of us have, no matter where we live, are the ones we are willing AND able to defend, even to the death, if necessary.

We, the citizens of the United States, have always been willing and able to defend our rights. THIS is the reason we have rights in the first place. No one gave them to us. We took them. It’s the reason we’ve remained free and independent. Eliminate either the willingness or ability and we’ll no longer have any “rights.” We’ll be free to ponder all the Creator-bestowed “self-evident” truths we want, but to no avail. Like many others in the world, “life,’ “liberty,” and the “pursuit of happiness” will be meaningless words.

When it comes to interpreting the United States Constitution, I think we’re stuck with doing the best that we can, given the circumstances that confront us at a specific time. In other words, the “originalist view” does not make much sense. Here’s why.

Do you ever wonder if the United States will still exist in 220 years? I do. If so, under what conditions will our citizens have to live? Will we be a superpower? If we of 21st century America had to write a constitution from scratch in 2007, which human protections would we include? Sound far-fetched? Think about it.

September 17, 2007 will mark the 220th anniversary of the final draft signing of the United States Constitution. Essentially, the Big Bang of our Constitutional occurred on that day in history. What motivated its designers to include the human protections that it did?

The politicians of that year, like those of today, based their actions on the circumstances surrounding their lives. They were people of means, movers and shakers of their time who could afford to “serve others.” They changed things because they didn’t like the living conditions. The resultant Declaration of Independence and Constitution have endured for centuries because those folks built in the ability to change things whenever necessary. What we have to guard against is changing things that we shouldn’t change.

The Constitution did not address the death penalty. We’ve imposed one, off and on, over the past 200 plus years, just the same and, for a lot less than capital murder. We used to hang horse thieves. Additionally, Justice Scalia quickly pointed out that the Constitution didn’t address abortion, either. Agree or disagree with the outcome, it does now. In addition to other protections, it did address gun ownership, religious freedom, and the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

Since, the Constitution did not deal directly with many of today’s issues; do you think there’s a common thread to all those that our founding fathers made sure to include directly? I do, and I think the word “contemporary” has a lot to do with it.

For example, under the British Crown, there was an “official” religion. Our founders didn’t like that. So they considered freedom of religion very important and barred our federal government from establishing one. The British Crown didn’t assume the innocence of people it accused of crimes. Essentially, they assumed prisoners guilty until they proved themselves otherwise. The Brits didn’t need warrants, either. They could just kick your door in and take you away. So, our founders protected us against this sort of thing. Oh, yes, they also felt that guns were essential to protecting our new way of life.

Everyone, at that time, knew that a “tooth for a tooth” was perfectly righteous and logical. There was no need for the Constitution to cover executions. Besides, it was a local issue, up to the local authorities and citizens. It was a private matter.

Abortion was not an issue for them, either. They were all men. Women had no rights other than those bestowed upon them by their fathers or husbands.

Oh, there were abortions. If slave owners wanted to abort their slaves’ pregnancies, they strung the pregnant slave up by the arms and beat her about her buttocks and lower back with a paddle until she bled. Free woman had them, too, especially if the pregnancy was an embarrassment to the family. It’s just that families undertook them under much more clinical and gentle conditions. I don’t know how medically safe they were. Come on. We didn’t know about germs at that time! At any rate, their families took care of things… privately. It was no one’s business.

During his speech, Justice Scalia said that answers to questions about “the death penalty, assisted suicide, and homosexual sodomy are absolutely clear for the originalist.” I agree. They are. But, absolutism is always the precursor of simplistic solutions. To such people, the death penalty is righteous revenge, assisted suicide is wrong, and homosexuality is immoral. The bible has already declared it. So, why involve the Constitution?

Yes, 220-years ago, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 signed the final draft of a document that covered contemporary issues. They were protecting themselves and, to some extent, future generations. Contemporarily, they were quite sure of themselves. As to future generations, I don’t think they were as sure as Justice Scalia claims.

Yep, one thing differentiates the politicians of that day from today’s. Those people knew that they didn’t know everything. As though it were instinctive, they seemed to sense that they had too little insight into long-term future issues. The year, 2007 was inconceivable! What makes me think this? It’s a dead giveaway: Article V of that very Constitution.

They gave us a way to change the Constitution, just in case. To me, this ability to change things was the genius of the whole exercise. They made it tough to change it; but they made it possible as long as enough people believe it needs to be changed. Not everyone has to agree, but enough of the country does.

Going back to my original premise, I think that if we were starting from scratch in the year, 2007, we’d write a document based on contemporary issues, with an eye towards those that we think might confront future generations, the same as our forefathers did in 1787. The difference is that we have infinitely more technological advantages that make our ability to predict the future more accurate than theirs was. We’d probably be more accurate predicting out from the years 2007 to 2227, than our founders were about predicting out from 1787 to 2007. But, we’d still build in a mechanism for change because life has always changed and always will.

I believe that Antonin Scalia is wrong in his “originalist view.” Don’t take me the wrong way. I think he’s a decent man, very likeable, witty, charming, and intellectually adept. However, I’m not going to get all bubbly-eyed over his, though. He just proves that Neanderthals still live here AND that they can be nice, witty people.

Now, about that “duh! view” of the Constitution that I mentioned earlier. If you are not sure of what the Constitution is or the things that it protects against, you’re probably a subscriber. Do the country a favor and take a course. Better, still, read the Constitution.

I’ll be back next week. At least that’s the plan, my “living document view” of the Constitution notwithstanding.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Of cow farts, limbo, and other stuff!

By Joseph Walther

Listen up. I have some bad news, some good news, and then, some more bad news. On the bad news front, the human race may be doomed sooner than we think. Cows! That’s right…COWS. Apparently, they’ve been slowly, methodically doing us in ever since the Neolithic Era. Although different subject matter, on the good news front, the Roman Catholic Pope has decided to eliminate the concept of limbo. On the “some more bad news” front, fewer people are attending church services, so limbo may be a dead issue.

The next time you fire up your gas-guzzling SUV, or that motor home in which you achieve 8-miles per gallon, rest easy. When the tree huggers cuss you out, just flip them the bird and keep on moving. You’re not the one bringing the human race to the brink of extinction. Cow farts are doing it.

It’s not the cow farts, actually. Cow belches are doing around 95% of it. Getting even more technical, it’s not just the cows. It’s livestock in general. This is a fact. However, cow belch, or burp, doesn’t elicit nearly the same degree of “snicker” effect that cow fart does. As a writer, I feel obligated to raise your awareness to these matters and I will stoop to any depth to do it.

First, I want to make sure we’re all using the proper terms. Many people think that the hole in the ozone layer is causing global warming. In fact, they—including a significant percentage of the news media—think that the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion are the same. They’re not. CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) deplete the ozone layer and carbon emissions cause the greenhouse effect which, in turn, raises the planet’s temperature.

If the Earth’s ozone layer disintegrates, it won’t cause global warming. It’ll just cause massive outbreaks of terminal cancer. Additionally, we’ll start noticing these ugly, pussy, seeping lesions popping up all over our bodies. This will be due to the full force of the Sun’s ultra-violet rays reaching Earth.

Of course, this will be nothing compared to the myriad other radiation-oriented problems, like toes growing out of our foreheads, or an extra arm attached to our buttocks, or maybe even an extra breast growing out of women’s backs between their shoulder blades. Of course, this last one will probably raise the male interest in slow dancing to record-breaking levels.

On the bright side, though, this will not cause climatic changes. It won’t warm up the planet, thus causing continents to slide beneath the oceans, unheard of category-12 hurricanes, tidal waves the size of Mount Everest, and a host of other cataclysmic events that, at the very least, might extinguish the human race and turn control over the cockroaches. No, the greenhouse effect (global warming), at least in part, will cause this.

The point is that livestock emissions are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Even the staunchest of tree hugger fanatic can’t dismiss this. That’s right. All of the transportation-generated greenhouse emissions combined do not amount to 18% of the total.

Remember this the next time you red meat-eating clowns go out for a prime rib dinner or a juicy steak dinner. All you’re doing is encouraging farmers to breed more cows that will compound the cow fart problem—belch problem, actually, but I’ve explained this. If you care, you’ll order tofu. Also, we should start boycotting Wendy’s. McDonald’s and Burger King are okay because I don’t think they use beef. I’m not sure what they use, but it can’t be beef.

Now, let’s look at some good news. Remember, I said “good” news, not necessarily “meaningful” news. Pope Benedict XVI has decided to eliminate the concept of limbo from Roman Catholicism.

When I was born, my parents baptized and raised me as a Roman Catholic. I’m sure the Church excommunicated me, though. My best educated guess as to when this happened is around age 12. I had developed this crush on a girl named Ann. It seemed that every time I thought about her, something came up. The more often I thought about her, the more frequently… well, you get the picture. Even without this, I had already begun to think that the Catholic Church’s approach to worldly social issues bordered on pure stupidity. But, when Father Breen told me that I couldn’t think about Ann, it was the last straw!

Anyway, for centuries, Roman Catholics believed that children who die prior to Baptism went to limbo. It wasn’t Heaven’s level of supernatural happiness in the presence of God, but it wasn’t bad, either. It was a state of “perfect” natural happiness. I imagine that it was something like the natural happiness, anticipation, pleasure, and joy that I felt whenever I thought about Ann, if you get my drift. But, maybe not.

As for limbo, I always thought it was bad marketing. What idiot is going to give your church money after you’ve told them that their infant kid’s in hell? A copout like limbo was sheer marketing genius. Pope Benedict didn’t mention anything about donation maintenance. All he said, in effect, was that there are “serious” grounds to hope that children who die before baptism can go to heaven. He referred to limo as “only a theological hypothesis.”

As usual, some other theologians disagree. The Rev. Richard McBrien said, “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace.”

Here’s a third option, Father McBrien. Limbo’s bullshit and St. Augustine, while one of your churches heavyweights, was an asshole, perhaps the Pat Robertson of his time, an idiot. Maybe everyone IS born in a state of grace. Oh, and, here is a side note to Pope Benedict XVI. There’s no such thing as a “theological hypothesis. Any legitimate, objective scientist can explain why.

Okay, back to more “bad” news. According to the Sunday News Journal, “80% of Americans profess a belief in God, but the pews are emptying.” Click here for the article. It goes into many reasons for why the pews are emptying, but seems to avoid hitting on anything meaningful. Let me try it.

First, a denominational, dogmatic, vengeful-prone God is different from an all-around omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, protective, and forgiving God. The latter God is the God of choice for many of us. It’s an attractive concept, easy to believe AND there are no strings attached… no annoying, etched in stone rules to follow. The idea of a bearded, old, pissed-off tyrant floating around the heavens tossing fireballs and floods at people who anger Him is not so welcome, though.

While they are not alone, Catholics believe that theirs is the only true religion. It upsets the other religions to say the least. Likewise, the Jews have always believed that they’re God’s chosen people. This offends the hell out of the Palestinians, who have always believed that they’re His favorites. Looking at the tragic history of the Jewish people, I wonder. If this is how God treats His chosen ones, the rest of us better standby for some heavy-weight grief!

Second, another part of the problem is that it’s more acceptable to say that you believe in God than it is to say otherwise. Besides, even the most solid believers among us have to admit that no one knows for sure. So, what’s it hurt to say you believe?

Third, if there is ONE God, why are there so many sets of rules? One set would simplify everything. Also, we need more proof than the words of some antagonistic, power hungry men who always get the word from God when they are alone, without witnesses, talking burning bushes notwithstanding. I’m not saying that Moses didn’t get the Word from a burning bush, mind you. I’m just saying that people should have checked the remaining supply of Kickapoo Joy Juice when he came back off that mountain.

Finally, if the alleged believers truly believed as professed, they’d be in their churches of choice every day of every week of every year of every century. They’d abide by all that they claim is good and holy 24 by 7, NO EXEMPTIONS. I don’t see this happening. So, what’s a guy to think?

I’ll be back next week. The company I use for email notifications is screwing up the email notifications. I’m looking for a replacement. In the meantime, I’ve noticed a huge increase in the RSS feed requests. RSS feeds are far more reliable than email notifications. Just click on the RSS button in the left-hand column.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Precisely who is better off and why?

By Joseph Walther

 

At the end of last week’s column, I mentioned that I was working on a “doozy” of a topic for this week. Well, I still am; but it’s not ready yet. However, two things happened this past week that scream for attention. The first deals with the incredible response to last week’s column. The second deals with the death of a 76-year-old Alzheimer’s patient. So, I’ll get to the “doozy” next week.

 

            Last week, I wrote a column dealing with Florida’s Department of Corrections placing five convicted sex offenders underneath a major overpass in Miami-Dade County. I’m not going to rewrite it this week. You can click here to read the column if you wish. I received an incredibly large response to that column. While over 80% of the respondents understood my point, the rest of the respondents missed it altogether. So, let me clarify.

 

            One of the primary points surrounding the development of sex offenders’ databases—particular emphasis on child molesters—is location control. A high recidivism rate (75% by reliable federal statistics) demands that we monitor the whereabouts of such people. I have no problems with this. It’s just that I think passing unthinking ordinances that only address where convicted offenders CAN’T live, without addressing where they CAN live, is self-defeating.

 

            It sounds like a great idea to prevent convicted offenders from living within 2,500 feet of anywhere that children may congregate. But, the fact remains that, once legally released into supervised custody, these people have to live somewhere. They’re not going to do society a favor and just die. If they can’t come up with people willing to take them in under supervised custody rules, the State must find transitional housing for them.

 

            I addressed some alternative methods of dealing with this sort of convicted offender last week. Making it virtually impossible for the various state Departments of Corrections to house them, however, only compounds the problem. Eventually, we’ll lose control of the very people we want to keep an eye on. Placing them outdoors, under bridges and overpasses speeds this along quite well.

 

            I don’t like the idea of our courts releasing convicted child molesters into my neighborhood anymore than any of you do. However, as long as I have a legal right to know about it, the prospect scares me a lot less than the thought of such people going underground where I have no idea where they are. It’s very difficult to protect children from a danger if we don’t know where the danger is.

 

            I don’t question the sincerity of all politicians who pass these restrictive lodging ordinances. In fact, I have no problems with them as long as there are provisions that permit the State to house the released offenders somewhere else where we can watch them. However, as we currently pass them, such ordinances amount to the same level of useless, smoke screen security measures as our alleged airport security screenings do.

 

            Now, I want to address another issue that came up this past Friday. It involves the death of a 76-year-old Alzheimer’s patient. She had wondered away from her home and drowned in a small stream close by. It wasn’t so much the death itself that spurred me on to write about it, as much as some of the responses to the death. You can click here to read the police account.

 

            I was in a bookstore Friday evening. A woman in her, I’d guess, 50s, made a statement to her companions that she thought “this poor soul” was better off now. Her companions, two other women and a man, seemed to nod in agreement. These people meant it in the most concerned, respectful of ways. What I’m not sure of, however, is who, precisely, is better off.

 

            Six months ago, an old friend of mine died from pancreatic cancer. He worked the last 30-years of his life as a mailroom employee for a large multinational company. Even though his mental handicap was obvious, he was a well-liked, productive employee. After his funeral, I overhead some who said that he was better off dead. In this case, however, I agree with them. I can only imagine the pain he had gone through. Back in 1976, some others said the same thing about him; however, I disagreed then.

 

            In 1976, Thomas… that was his name and he insisted on it, was a research chemist for the duPont Company. He had received his PhD in early 1975. He was single, earning a good salary in a challenging and responsible position. He was looking ahead to a bright future. In June of 1976, he suffered a devastating nervous breakdown. The resultant brain damage in both the memory and cognitive areas was permanent. With rehabilitation, he’d become self-supporting and productive, but at nowhere near his former capacity.

 

            I spent considerable time with Thomas. He knew that something had happened to him, but he didn’t know what. He also knew that people were trying to help him and that he’d get better at some point. It took some time, but he relearned some of the basic skills he lost as the result of the breakdown. He never returned to duPont. He moved on to another company, the one he stayed with for the rest of his working life. Once again, he was hopeful for his future.

 

            The people who thought he’d be better off dead were just as sincere as those folks lamenting the outcome for the Alzheimer’s patient above. You see, we who remain of whole mind and body often compare the infirm to those of whole mind and body. We can’t imagine living like “that.” What many of us fail to consider, though, is that we’re the ones stressed out over the infirmities.

 

            In Thomas’s case, he had no recollection of his past after he suffered the nervous breakdown. He remembered his name and he recognized his family members. But, he had no idea what had been. All he knew was that he had suffered a brain problem and he had to learn many things all over again. It was the love of his family and friends that made him want to do it. He was hopeful for his future. He would not have been better off dead because, as see saw it, he had no reason for wanting to be dead.

            Likewise, middle and later-stage Alzheimer’s disease is not stressful for those directly afflicted. They have no idea that they suffer from it. In their minds, they have no reason to want to die. They live and hope within the mental confines of their infirmities. As is usually the case, we, the well, compare them to what they once were and conclude that they are “better off dead.”

 

            Comparisons always require perspective. Before we healthy ones declare that someone who is in poor health would be “better off dead,” we should carefully examine which perspective we’re using. If we do it honestly, we’ll have a much more honest appraisal of which side is “better off.”

 

            In turn, this will force us to examine the “why” part. If the sick party would truly be better off dead, why tends to become self-evident. A cancer patient in the throes of unspeakable and irreversible pain is a prime example. On the other hand, if it is “we” who are “better off”, why is still self-evident. It’s just that we may have a hard time admitting it. It doesn’t, necessarily, make us awful. It does make us human though.

 

            That’s it for this week. As soon as I finish the rest of the particulars concerning that “doozy” I told you about last week, I’ll get it written and online. In the meantime, have a safe and happy week ahead.

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Get under that bridge and STAY there!

By Joseph Walther

 

A headline appeared in today’s Sunday News Journal. It’s in section A, page-2. The headline reads, “Sex offenders forced to live under bridge” with a sub-head that reads, “Fla. county’s law makes finding homes difficult.” I searched www.delawareonline.com for the article, but I couldn’t find it. So, I’m going to give a summary here because a large number of my readers do not live in Delaware. The article presents a prime example of the unintended consequences that result from enacting legislation in the “spirit of the law,” but enforcing the same legislation according to the “letter of the law.”

 

            Let me tell you clearly that I have no sympathy for sex offenders. I have a particular disdain for those who prey on children. It’s a major problem in this country. It does not matter if these offenders are acting on impulses that they do not understand and cannot control, or lucid beings committing unspeakably brutal acts to satisfy their sick insatiable urges. Either way, we can’t tolerate it. Simultaneously, we can’t deal with the problem if we don’t understand its nature.

 

            The article describes the living conditions of five sex offenders who live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County. It goes on to describe the conditions as, “not much better than prison.” The five males live on pallets or cardboard amidst the rats. They have fishing polls to find food, cook with small stoves, use battery-powered TVs/radios, and keep their belongings in plastic bags. One of them can’t recharge the GPS tracking device he’s required to wear because there are no electrical outlets near-by.

 

            What’s unique about this is the fact that the Florida Department of Corrections put all five of the men there. They are the only five sex offenders authorized to live outdoors in the State of Florida. They must remain under the bridge from 10 PM until 6 AM because probation and parole officers check them “nearly” every night.

 

            It’s not a puzzling situation when we analyze what brought it about. County Commissioner Jose Diaz authored an ordinance in 2005 prohibiting sex offenders from living near parks, schools, and other places where children congregate. In Miami-Dade County, sex offenders may not live within 2,500 feet of such places.

 

            Mr. Diaz did what he thought had to be done. I’m not criticizing him for it. His intention was to protect children from the likes of these offenders. Additionally, legislators in many other parts of the United States have passed or proposed similar laws. It’s a strong indication of how disgusted and fed-up people have become over the issue of child predators.

 

            Personally, I think this trend will eventually cause more harm than good. The spirit of such laws is extraordinarily well intentioned. However, their “to the letter” enforcement has enormous potential for negating most of that spirit. Here’s why.

 

            Sexual predators, no matter how we categorize them, have roamed this planet, looking for victims, since modern humans arrived on the scene. They were probably around before this. Regardless, it isn’t going to stop. Even if we eradicated every sexual predator known to humanity, others would take their places. We need to understand this and address it objectively.

 

            If society continues to treat human life as though it’s a special gift from [insert your favorite Deity], we will continue to encounter these kinds of problems. Look around you. Evidence abounds that humans have flaws. Some of them are mental; others are physical; and others, still, are a combination of both. Even more tragic is that many flaws are not even visible until it’s too late.

 

            The fact is that some humans are defective. Sexual predators are dangerously so. Whether you want to call them bad, sick, mental cases, or whatever, makes no difference. We can’t have them running around because they have “God-given” rights after paying their debts to society. Incidentally, how does an offender repay society after ruining a child for live? On the other hand, how do we deal with the issues in a way that keeps potential victims safe and simultaneously try to deal, in a socially humane way, with the offenders?

 

            If you believe that sexual predators are in control of their actions and that they prey on innocent people for the sheer joy of doing it, then the solution is simple. Either we put them away for life or we execute them. I know many people who feel this way. On the other hand, if you think that such predators are driven by urges they don’t understand and cannot control, there has to be another course of action. I know just as many people who feel this way, too. So, what’s the answer?

 

            Society is full of innocent, malfunctioning humans. Many were born this way. We don’t condemn spina bifida victims or muscular dystrophy victims, etc. We donate millions to help them. Addicts also enjoy society’s compassion. While some do, generally we just don’t toss such people aside or advocate eliminating them. However, when it comes to sexual predators, especially those who prey on children, we’re torn between the desire to kill the scum and a desire to stay on the civil high ground. As much as we hate what these offenders do, fewer people advocate killing them than advocate segregating them, permanently, from the rest of society.

 

            We can’t continue to drive the predators away from civilized society. Eventually, they’ll go underground and we’ll lose all control. The situation will become untenable. This is precisely what is happening with those five men in Florida. There are only five right now. Give it time, though, and soon there will be hundreds and then thousands.

 

            The entire exercise is a failure waiting to happen. Am I the only one wondering where these folks are between 6 AM and 10 PM? What does “nearly” mean when the Florida Department of Corrections says that probation/parole officers visit the offenders “nearly” every night. If the authorities are having problems keeping track of them now, what’s going to happen when the number doubles, triples, quadruples?

 

            Until we reconcile the differences between the “humans are special” believers and the “no, they’re not” crowd, we’re not going to find an answer. You may count me among the “no, they’re not” crowd. Although, I’ll concede that we’re special in that our brains have evolved beyond the stem and that we’re capable of self-awareness. Beyond this, I don’t think there is anything particularly special about humans. However, I’m not about to vote for housing sexual predators under bridges. It has less to do with civil compassion than it does with practicality.

 

            Ample evidence exists to support the notion that the problem is one of addiction, albeit mental. All addictions are similar in that they may be purely physical, purely mental, or combinations of both. The latter is usually the case. So far, we can’t cure addictions. At best, we try to control them.

 

            If this is the case with sexual predators, the risk of relapse may be too great. In other words, weekly AA-type meetings are not going to cut it. If, we’re not going to make it a capital crime, we need to start building places to segregate the offenders from our children. Putting them under bridges isn’t going to cut it, either!

 

            I’ll be back next week. I have a gem in the making. I still need two more confirmations. It’s a doozy!

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Cancer Schmancer, as long as you feel OK...

By Joseph Walther

 

Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer has returned. She and her husband, John, announced it last week. In spite of this, they—emphasis on “they”—intend to continue John’s quest for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I thought it was a great decision. Then, the leading right-wing talking head, Rush Limbaugh, announced that it was political gimmickry, aimed at procuring the “sympathy” vote. Since then, I’ve heard a minority others on the right eluding to the same thing. My blood is still boiling!

 

            We are all no more than a blood test or an MRI away from receiving the same horrible news. When a physician pronounces that demoralizing word, it resonates off the eardrums, making its way to the brain for substantiation. In a split second, the word CANCER begins its tranquility-altering echo throughout every fiber of our being. The stun-effect is inexpressible. I know this from direct experience. My children know this from direct experience. As hard as it hit us, we could not begin to imagine the horror that had to be going through my wife’s mind as she heard the diagnosis.

 

            When forced to look boldly into the face of our own mortality, each of us has one of two choices. We can rationalize that death ultimately wins all of its battles, and simply decide to die. Or, we can decide to live for the rest of our lives. Yes, it’s going to suck unbelievably at times, but a decision to incorporate cancer into our life routines instead of making our living routines subservient to cancer is what gives hope and makes the situation tolerable.

 

            My wife chose the former. So did John and Elizabeth Edwards. Each day, thousands of others make the same choice. I know several people who have cancer. Some have had as many as five reoccurrences. None of them chose to wear a sign proclaiming the fact, but the public found out just the same. Massive hair loss, constant nausea, noticeable weight loss, and a seemingly perpetual loss of energy tattled on them. Most people will say nothing, but they know.

 

            John and Elizabeth Edwards aren’t looking for sympathy. They went public with the diagnosis because they are public figures. Ordinary people like us have only two chances of keeping such a thing secret from others: slim and none. High profile people like John and Elizabeth Edwards have ZERO chances. So, they took the wind out of the media’s sail by announcing it up front. Even at this, the media will continue its feeding frenzy until John and Elizabeth decide they can’t win or John takes the Presidential oath of office.

 

            This leads me to another point relative to the office of President of the United States. We seem to have fallen prey to a misconception as to what function that office serves.

 

            It is not to run the country. The United States Congress is supposed to do this, even though it hasn’t happened for a very long time. The President’s role is leadership. This hasn’t happened for a very long time, either! Rarely, though, will the media mention this. They’re going to be too busy hounding John and Elizabeth Edwards about her cancer and following the exploits of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Rosie O’Donnell, Donald Trump, or a cadre of other useless Hollywood swigs.

 

            I am more conservative than liberal, although my liberal streak stands out on occasion. Political labels like conservative and liberal can be devoid of party labels like Republican and Democrat. Several Democrats I know make some Republicans look like left-leaning pinko commies; just as some of my Republican friends make a handful of Democrats look like right-wing extremists.

 

            No matter, I don’t look for a presidential candidate who leans in particular direction. I look for one who demonstrates an ability to challenge us onto greatness, not only in our own collective eyes, but also in the eyes of the rest of the world. I look for a presidential candidate with the ability to bring a greater sense of aggregate self-respect to this nation. I look for a candidate with the ability to make us feel justifiably good about ourselves. We’ve had such presidents in the past.

 

            Political stance notwithstanding, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was what we needed at the time of his prominence. He was what we needed not because he was a liberal or a Democrat or an aristocrat, or a superb orator, but because he was able to convince us that we could handle anything fate threw at us. He made us believe in ourselves. Harry Truman followed suit, taking over at a time of extreme peril. We believed we could do anything on his watch because we believed in Harry.

 

            John Kennedy seemed to have had similar qualities, but we never learned for sure because an assassin cut his life short. People either loved Ronald Reagan or hated him. Politics aside, we needed him at the time he came along. He restored this nation’s lost sense of self-respect. He made us believe in ourselves again. Bill Clinton, on those occasions when he kept his penis locked behind his zipper, could feel our pain from light-years away and, like it or not, he had a charisma about him that radiated feelings of well being.

 

            These presidents had a number of attributes in common. Each was outstanding in the affective domain. Each made us believe in our collective selves. Each conducted their political battles effectively and well. Of the lot, Ronald Regan had the most to overcome, though. Each of the Democrats had a majority in Congress to help politically. Ronald Reagan didn’t. He had to fight a hostile Congress throughout his entire first term. He did it most effectively, though. His landslide reelection spoke for itself. Of course, it didn’t hurt that Fritz Mondale had the dynamics of water-soaked bread. Oh, and thank God for Geraldine Ferrara!

 

            Both diehard lefties and righties are going to send me nasty email because I’ve dared to mention Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton in a positive light. Let ‘er rip, folks. Fire away! It won’t change the fact that we’ve had precious little recently demonstrated presidential leadership outside of the ones that I’ve mentioned. It doesn’t mean the others, including George W. Bush, have been bad, stupid, or dishonest. I voted for George Bush… TWICE. What in hell was I thinking? Even so, he’s not a liar. He’s not evil incarnate. He’s just been incompetent as a United States President.

 

            None of the current crop of presidential wannabes has grabbed my attention so far. This includes both sides of the political aisle. The only one that I’ve ruled completely out, so far, is John McCain. I was in Viet Nam, too. While John is a few years my senior, he has reached the lower part of the down slope of his obsolescence curve. In terms of the leadership attributes I’ve described here, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, and Rudy Giuliani are not out of the question. Give them time, though. We shall see.

 

            Finally, where Rush Limbaugh and some of the other minor league righties are concerned, they’re not even in the same league as John Edwards when it comes to courage. In fact, in last week’s column I wrote about people we consider as “chronically unreflective.” Mr. Limbaugh fits the bill quite effectively. But, since he may not understand a term like “unreflective,” let’s stay with the technical equivalent: asshole.

 

            I’ll be back next week. Stay safe and have a great Easter if you’re of the Christian persuasion. If you’re not, have a great one, anyway. There has to be some occasion out there that we can all celebrate.

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.