I must confess to not being a very focused person, something
readers have certainly noticed. That’s why I’m rarely bored. My interests wander
all over the map, so I hope my readers are willing to follow, although they may
not always agree. I’m using this blog as a sort of diary, in case anyone wants
to review my life later after I depart this mortal coil.
A stone’s throw from my daughter Stephanie’s home near the University of Hawaii, a young
man tried to pull back a suicidal friend as both plunged 14 stories from a dorm
room, killing the good Samaritan and severely injuring the would-be suicide.
Sorry
to hear that my one-time acquaintance, former President Jimmy Carter, has brain cancer, but, at age 90, he seems ready to
go, saying he is at ease with whatever happens and has had a wonderful life,
which seems quite true. Certainly, he has been productive and remarkably active since leaving the presidency. But Carter,
like the rest of us, is not immortal. His mother and siblings, if I am not
mistaken, all died fairly early of pancreatic cancer, a scourge that former
President Carter himself apparently escaped. He should be proud of all he has
accomplished in his long life, especially since his presidency, which was when
I first met him with my late ex-husband, who did some work for him on domestic
policy with my help (my husband was totally blind). Carter knows he leaves a
considerable positive legacy around the world. He has authored a number of
books, including a recently published memoir, one of several he has written. I
haven’t read it, but I have read some of his other books. Although I often
agree with their policy perspective, I’ve found them not particularly gripping
or well-written, but celebrities and public figures don’t have to necessarily
write an interesting story to attract readers or sell books. What they have to
say is important because of who they are. GWBush’s memoir is a case in point.
Unlike Bush, Carter appears to have written most of his books himself, though
I’m sure he had some editorial help. He seems to have enjoyed writing them,
boasting a bit about all the books he has written, all showcasing his own experience
and opinions. I appreciate that both his mother and his grandson were Peace
Corps volunteers, part of a long familial chain of public service. I noted that
Carter himself spoke some Spanish.
The only matters about which I might fault Carter in his largely exemplary
life have been his quick imprimatur of Hugo Chavez’s first election, without
investigating allegations of serious flaws, which started Venezuela on its
downward spiral, and his apparent tacit support for the Castro regime in Cuba. He
openly praised a model Cuban AIDS treatment center, apparently without
questioning or realizing that such a facility was a show piece, not routine
care available for most AIDS patients. He was reported to have also praised
Cuban medical care, which certainly can be excellent, but is not generally offered
at that quality to most citizens, though the Cuban regime has convinced the
world otherwise. Another, more minor, matter is his involvement, along with the
participation of Peace Corps staff, in choosing recipients of a biennial award
in honor of his mother, Lillian Carter, given to senior volunteers where, in my
opinion, more than once, those actually chosen were not nearly as deserving in their
post-service contributions as some other candidates, such as those I was supporting.
Of course, I may be biased.
Bill Cosby certainly has been busy
raping women all his life, using a pretty successful modus operandi. Many women
didn’t remember exactly what had happened because they were drugged at the time
and/or were too afraid to come forward. His system worked well over the years and,
like many habitual offenders, he kept using the same tactics until he finally got
called out. Josh Duggar is another hypocrite,
a media personality representing himself as a family values guy while secretly
acting otherwise.
I fail to
understand why the US government would need to inform the parents of a female
hostage of ISIS that she was raped multiple times before being executed. At this juncture, that
just adds to their grief. So what was the purpose of revealing that? Was it to
get the American public more aroused against ISIS? Such additional information
seems gratuitous at best. Later, it was interpreted to show her bravery in
taking the brunt of sexual violence to protect young captive girls.
Have you ever heard of a pangolin, a small, scaly anteater type
mammal found in Africa, but increasingly endangered as people routinely eat
them and also use their parts in Chinese medicine? I had never heard of them
either, but they need protection now as they are nearing extinction, just as we
are becoming aware of their existence.
Not surprisingly, reaction around
the world has been largely negative to the advocacy of the total decriminalization of the sex trade—prostitutes,
johns, and pimps alike—by Amnesty
International (AI) at its worldwide congress. These are simple transactions
between consenting adults seems to be the reasoning. If the prostitutes’
actions alone were decriminalized, that might be more justifiable than decriminalizing
the whole enterprise: johns, pimps, brothels, middle men—and what about taxing
earnings? Is decriminalization the same as legalization? Do authorities now
actually police private conduct between consenting adults, even if money and
gifts are exchanged? I doubt it. Many men give jewelry or other gifts to
girlfriends and mistresses. Of course, in Saudi Arabia, while polygamy is
allowed, extramarital sex is not, whether or not anything is exchanged, but
practices there are not likely to be influenced by Amnesty International, which
has not been able to stop Saudi executions for adultery or homosexuality, for
example.
Granted, there are always nuances
and exceptional circumstances with any conduct. With prostitution, where should
the line be drawn? Indeed, given that sex mores have been relaxing rapidly
worldwide, perhaps decriminalization of the world’s oldest profession is the
direction that consensus is now headed with Amnesty only leading the way. Acceptance
of premarital sex, open marriage, bisexuality, and gay sex—even of sex
change—has been growing, aided by the development of treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases including AIDS, hormone treatment, contraception, and the
internet. However, the experience of New Zealand and the Netherlands in
decriminalizing prostitution has not been positive. Rather, prostitution has doubled
afterward, as has venereal disease, and most prostitutes even there have been
anxious to leave the life. Prostitutes generally enter the sex trade as minors,
surely something Amnesty would not endorse.
Here’s
a comment on the new AI sex worker decriminalization policy from a member
website: The lack of
inclusion of survivor groups and slanting toward the "sex worker"
groups is particularly disturbing. I feel like asking questions, like I believe
that "[i]ndividuals can exercise agency in deciding to sell sex" is
beside the point. Maybe so, but what percentage of the people who sell
themselves, or are sold, feel that way, and what about the rest who want to escape?
According to the article below in
the Huffington Post from Equality
Now, a "2003 study found that 89% of women in prostitution would choose to
exit if they felt empowered to do so - and if other options were made available
to them." So is AI policy only for those 11%, maybe who consider it a free
choice? (I also recommend reading the study on PTSD rates for prostitutes in 9
countries it links to, and all the other horrible conditions they face,
including high incidence of head injuries. Anybody here want to make that
career choice, or advise their daughter, or son, to? It does include some men
and transgender individuals in their research, facing just as bad conditions,
it seems like the buyers are all men).
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jacqui-hunt/legalising-prostitution-is-a-terrible-idea_b_2644337.html
There seems to be quite a bit of
pushback on the decision from Amnesty members around the world now, although
they (we) elected delegates to the international meeting where the controversial
decision was made, but mostly without our awareness that this topic would be
voted on. Certainly, as an active member since 1981, I was taken by surprise. National
Amnesty organizations may now decide whether to actually work in favor of this
policy and some are refusing, notably France, for starters. Women seem far more
opposed than men. Since most prostitutes are women, we women may imagine ourselves
in their place, with the idea of having sex for money clashing with our view of
sex as an expression of special affection and regard.
Amnesty International’s endorsement of the decriminalization of
prostitution and all its various players has at least raised the public profile
of the organization, though probably not increased donations. Now a DC city councilmember, inspired by
Amnesty, says he’s planning to introduce a prostitution decriminalization bill.
Editorially, the Washington Post came
out against the idea.
And since I’m being an old fuddy duddy
anyway, and taking advantage of my soapbox here, as an aside, I fail to see (admittedly
from my female vantage point) why celebrities have to aggressively display
their breasts, often with outfits providing just the barest covering over the nipple.
Ladies, we know you have breasts! No need to flaunt them.
The Donald
seems
to be having a lot of fun, saying anything outrageous that comes into his shaggy
head, enjoying evoking shock among his listeners, eagerly playing the role of con
man, huckster, and snake oil salesman. Like any such showman, he still manages
to attract and convince the gullible, only too eager to believe his magical and
impossible message. Sounds like he may want to become a dictator, even trashing
the Constitution. How can the Constitution be considered unconstitutional? No
matter. He also still disputed Obama’s birth certificate when it was authenticated
and displayed. Much of Trump’s appeal derives from his ability to thumb his
nose at the Republican Party and the political establishment, as well as at laws
and history. But does he actually believe his own pronouncements, often
delivered with his trademark squinting frown? Or is he merely putting on a performance?
A high wall could be built along much
of the Mexican border, but what about tunnels? And who are “them” versus “us’?
Unfortunately for Trump supporters, it’s too late; many of those he characterizes
as “them” are already “us”. Pundits keep waiting for him to implode by going
too far, but the more outlandish his pronouncements, the more his popularity
soars. Where will it end? Maybe with a dream ticket: Donald Trump/Dr. Ben
Carson (who is polling second)? The mood of Trump supporters is pure anti-establishment,
sweep the field clean—kick all the
bums out! The best thing for the Democrats and for the USA would be for Trump to
embark on a loud 3rd party candidacy to draw all those negative
vibes toward himself.
In China, a massive port
disaster like the one being brought under control and still under investigation
in Tianjin will cause some heads to roll—maybe even literally through execution.
Although news in China is government-controlled
and may single out certain unfortunate individuals for blame, it’s still
possible that the Chinese people may come to question the entire system and the
self-appointed leadership that allowed something like this to happen.
In Bangkok, a lovely,
lively city that I once visited, has been subjected to an apparent terrorist bomb
attack. What is the aim—to demonstrate power, cause destruction, or wreak revenge?
To disrupt tourism? So sad.
In South Sudan, another
place I’ve been, hard-headed president Salva Kiir has refused to sign a peace
agreement painstakingly worked out by the African Union and supported by the US
and that his vice president and rival has already signed. Kiir says he needs at
least 15 days to review it; meanwhile, the civil war is this fragile and
long-suffering new nation continues unabated. Such havoc that one person can
wreak through force of sheer personality, stubbornness, guile, and power
hunger! How do such people, usually men, maneuver themselves into positions of
power, which they then turn around and use against those who put them there? (Trump
supporters, beware!)
In Ecuador, a massive
gathering of indigenous people arrived in the capital of Quito after a 800-km.
long national march, protesting, among other matters, constitutional changes that
would allow President Rafael Correa successive indefinite terms in office.
More here about how former Peace
Corps volunteers in the DR are working against the Haitian descendants law,
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/2015/08/18/rpcvs-and-cds/
Also, the ethnic fight has spilled over to the US among Haitian and Dominican immigrants
who, you might think would all be sympathetic with Haitian descendants in the
US. http://news.yahoo.com/dominicans-haitians-stage-us-rallies-over-immigration-194038182.html
I
well remember radio spots financed by USAID when I was in the Peace Corps in
Honduras, urging parents not to leave their children behind by going to the US.
Now U.S. Customs and Border Protection has launched a more extensive
advertising campaign to dissuade Central
Americans from trying to enter the United States illegally and to avoid
last year’s influx. The message of the campaign, appearing on television, radio
stations, social media, and posters in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, is simple:
“It is very, very dangerous and you are not going to be allowed to claim that
you are eligible to remain in the United States.” http://news.yahoo.com/u-ads-target-illegal-immigration-central-america-212518284.html
I
do agree with this judge, however, for those who’ve already made it here, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/judge-increases-pressure-on-us-to-release-migrant-families.html?_r=0
I
seem unable to avoid commenting on Cuba, a nation close to my heart with issues
that aren’t going to go away any time soon, though headlines may fade. Apparently
President Obama began his second term
with the idea of rapprochement with Cuba, though the path was secretive, arduous,
and uncertain. The Cuban government certainly increased its leverage in such a
deal by seizing Alan Gross as a hostage. Here below is the link to a detailed account,
originally appearing in the NYTimes,
about how matters unfolded. Now, finally, the Cuban side has agreed to allow US
Embassy personnel to travel outside of Havana, but only after giving prior
notice (allowing the Cubans to arrest or detain in their homes any suspected
opposition figures who might want to speak with them). The Cuban regime is
holding on tight to protect its control and its perks, trying to reap all the
benefits of a bilateral relationship without giving up anything on its side. The
Cubans loudly accuse the US of racial profiling, though that is not an official
policy of the federal government, quite to the contrary, while beating up and
arresting peaceful women marchers is a consistent daily practice of the Cuban
government.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-secretive-path-to-raising-us-flag-in-cuba/ar-BBlJ57u?ocid=iehp
Although the NYTimes has relentlessly supported the
Obama/Raul Castro accords, the Washington
Post has been equally critical, highlighting the snub of Cuban dissidents
at the embassy opening, though Kerry did agree to meet with them later at the
home of the chief of mission. He gave a speech about democracy that was
actually broadcast on Cuban State TV and he strolled through Old Havana, both
events of significance. No top Cuban officials apparently attended the embassy
opening and some dissidents refused to attend his alternate gathering. Since
the article below appeared, President Obama has gone even further, announcing further
unilateral relaxation of US travel rules to Cuba. Apparently, he has decided to
keep giving the Cuban leadership whatever it wants without trying to exact any
concessions for citizens’ rights. Does he think the latter will come automatically
from increased tourism and money flowing into the coffers of the political
elite? Or has he given up on Cuban civilians’ rights ?
Senator Patrick
Leahy, hardly one of my
favorite politicians, persists in spreading misinformation about Cuba, either
through ignorance or deliberate manipulation. He keeps accusing today’s critics
of Obama’s Cuba policy of being Batista supporters: “[P]ositive change in
Cuba will take time. But it will come not as a result of stubborn nostalgia by
a vociferous few for the Batista years.” Few Cubans in 1958-59 were Batista
supporters and few if any opponents of the Castros today were even alive when
Batista was in power. Absolutely no one is talking about Batista today except
Leahy. Most Castro opponents during his early years, inside and outside his
government, had first opposed Batista before pledging their allegiance to
Fidel, only to withdraw it in disillusionment when they saw him becoming an even
more ruthless dictator than his predecessor. The nostalgia Leahy talks about,
to the extent it actually exists, is for a time before Batista seized power (he
had once been elected). Leahy himself is promoting a stubborn nostalgia based
on a romantic view of the 56-year Castro dictatorship.
Here below is a fairly complete, balanced analysis of
the pros and cons for outsiders of investing in Cuba, showing it to be less
than the golden opportunity many American business enterprises had anticipated.
If correct, this view, outlined by the Business Council of Latin America and
Carlos Alberto Montaner in a meeting on Cuba held in San Juan, PR, Aug. 14,
2015, means that Cuba is probably not going to follow the Chinese and
Vietnamese economic model of allowing citizens to establish and direct private
companies or to set up partnerships with foreign firms—rather, except for small
family home businesses, all enterprises will remain under the control of the
Cuban government and military, including those involving foreign investors.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=23114e73-3f47-42d1-b6c2-f8f1942b6b21&c=a7180bf0-2f8e-11e4-8b5b-d4ae52754dbc&ch=a72d68b0-2f8e-11e4-8b5d-d4ae52754dbc
According to the above
analysis, ordinary Cubans are not likely to get even the citizen
investment and business opportunities now available in China and Vietnam.
There, such opportunities were opened only through decisions made at the very
top of the government leadership, not due to citizen pressure or outside
investor demand. The Cuban leadership and military are likely to
retain full control of outside investors and the economic efforts of Cuban
citizens, at least until the Castro brothers pass on. After that, with any
luck, the leadership may embark slowly on a modified Chinese model. Otherwise,
it doesn't look like a lot of outside investment in Cuba is likely to occur,
especially after the initial wave of excitement and euphoria about restored
diplomatic relations dies down. Investors will see that few opportunities are really open
to them, as opposed to the regime, to make a profit and most profit will
come from tourists, not from in-country production. It's hard to believe that
the Cuban economic system can limp along as it has, especially with the price
of oil still low. Even China is not doing so well these days, despite
government intervention in the market. Hope China doesn't drag the world
economy down with it.
Gun deaths, which had been diminishing despite highly
publicized mass murders, are now on the uptick. According to the Center for Disease
Control, 33,636 people died due to gun-related
causes in 2013, the year with the most recent data. The national average
is 10.6 gun deaths per 100,000 residents. But that number varies
widely from state to state. The Kaiser Family Foundation assembled a table
of statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on 2013
mortality rates from firearms in each state.
Kaiser combined together various firearm-related causes of death, including
assault by firearm, police shootings, suicide by firearm, and accidental
discharges.
Some highlights: •
States with the highest rate include Alaska (19.8) and Louisiana (19.3). Alaska
doesn't require residents to have a permit for carrying concealed
weapons, while Louisiana does, but has fairly
permissive gun laws otherwise.
• States with the
lowest rate include Massachusetts (3.1) and Hawaii (2.6). Both states have some of the strictest gun control laws in the
country. Read more: http://www.techinsider.io/states-where-americans-die-from-gun-shots#ixzz3iGFquMTS
“Right to choose,”
“right to life,”
"Politically motivated witch hunt,”" Billion-dollar industry that dissects babies,” are some of the
heated charges exchanged after recent revelations that Planned Parenthood has been harvesting and passing along fetal body
parts. Abortion arguments have not died down appreciably in the more than four
decades since Roe vs. Wade. Dare I wade into the argument and try to find a
middle ground?
The US Supreme Court in 1973 held
that for abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the
judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. For second trimester pregnancies,
states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating
abortion procedures. As for third trimester pregnancies, states may support the
potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except
when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Planned Parenthood
undertook the performance of legal abortions soon after the court’s decision.
Now that organization finds itself at the center of a typically polarized
political controversy, with several public officials cutting ties with Planned
Parenthood while some supporters have increased their donations. The
controversy is not likely to go away.
Might
Planned Parenthood now agree to a compromise in the current controversy? Or
having won this round of funding battles, will it hold fast to present
policies? Is a middle ground on such a contentious issue even possible? Or will
this fight continue? Though it would
be unpopular with both Planned Parenthood supporters and detractors, it may be
time to consider a more nuanced abortion policy. No doubt the organization does
much useful work in providing contraception, STD testing, and cancer screening,
but abortion is its most controversial service. Part of the outcry over Planned
Parenthood and the casual acknowledgement of the transfer of fetal body parts
stems from the public being alerted to the fact that aborted fetuses actually have body parts—hearts, kidneys, livers,
lungs-- that can be transplanted into other fetuses or babies—in one reported
case, a heart was still beating when removed. Surely a woman’s “right to choose”
does not extend that far. It’s been comforting to think of abortions as getting
rid of unwanted “tissue” that may eventually form into a viable baby, as a
strictly medical procedure between a
woman and her doctor, obscuring the fact that it’s not the same as removing a
tumor or an inflamed appendix. The revelation that an aborted fetus may already
have human body parts is disconcerting.
Roe
vs. Wade allowed abortion up to viability,
but viability has kept moving earlier
as tiny babies born even before 24 weeks sometimes survive. Reproductive
innovations—in vitro fertilization, egg and sperm donation, surrogacy, embryo
freezing—all have propelled reproduction into new territory since Roe vs. Wade
and have increased our understanding of fetal development. We now know that an embryo may divide several
days after fertilization, so that the initial embryo (which can be kept frozen
in suspended animation for years) might be considered more in terms of its
potential humanity, but only later becomes one or more distinct individuals.
Women do undergo abortions all over the world and many others experience
miscarriages, the latter often considered a tragedy, but less so than a
stillbirth. Perhaps a majority of sexually active women have experienced either
a miscarriage or an abortion. At one time, “quickening,” that is, when fetal
movements could be felt, was when a fetus was considered human. When does a
fetus begin to feel pain? When does self-awareness and consciousness develop,
or is that only after a baby’s birth and emergence into the light of day? These
are not abstract questions, but are probably discernible by contemporary
science and medicine, more answerable now than when Roe vs. Wade was first
decided.
As
a lifelong Democrat and human rights advocate, an adoptive parent who has also
given birth, and a board member of an international adoption agency, as well as a Spanish interpreter who has
worked in a NICU, I find myself in sympathy with stopping all abortions at 20
weeks, provided there is no other overriding consideration. Surveys have shown
that most Americans, while they do support first-trimester abortions by a small
majority, would cut abortion off at that point (which probably would not yield
many useful body parts). Abortion-rights advocates, including many allied with Planned
Parenthood, decry any such proposals an attack on women’s reproductive rights,
but as understanding of pregnancy and fetal development increases, along with
successful medical interventions for preterm infants, that no longer seems like
such an unreasonable standard. Planned Parenthood would perhaps experience less
hostility toward provision of early abortions if it expressed a willingness to
stop later ones, rather than reacting so defensively.
To
depict abortion as just an ordinary medical procedure is unrealistic. The issue
remains as divisive as ever—or has become even more so—since the days of Roe
vs. Wade. Those questioning a woman’s right to an abortion at any stage are
often accused of being hypocrites in favor of capital punishment, but I, for
one, oppose capital punishment and there are many others who share my position.
Additionally, the overpopulation argument no longer holds in developed
countries, where the average age keeps rising and deaths may exceed births. In
the U.S., our population distribution has remained steady thanks only to the
fecundity of Hispanic women (Donald Trump: take note).
In
my dreams (why not?--dreams are free), Planned Parenthood and pro-lifers would
join forces in a pilot project, financed perhaps by a generous intrepid donor,
offering women with problem pregnancies a truly full range of choices and
services, not only morning-after pills, contraception, pregnancy verification,
sterilization, and first-trimester abortion, but also ultrasound, prenatal
care, and temporary support, even delivery options from water births to
C-sections, as well as later foster care and adoption services if desired.
Pregnant women would not be pressured to make any particular choice and early
abortion would not be discouraged, but other realistic alternatives would be
offered. Adoption and alternative fertility options have become big business,
with women who agree to become surrogates or to give up their babies for
adoption currently being amply supported by the future parents. Such support,
along with Medicaid and Obamacare, could perhaps help finance the type of
center envisioned. Then, an unexpectedly pregnant woman would have a real choice.
If
I had the time, energy, and means—or could convince a willing deep-pockets
donor--I’d like to try to put together something like that myself, though it would
probably be attacked by both sides and therefore face difficulties in staff
recruitment.
Such
a proposal puts me in neither the conservative nor liberal camp, which is fine
with me. My liberal credentials are already under attack because I don’t
support the dictatorial Castro regime. Where my opinions fall along the
liberal-conservative spectrum depends on the particular issue. I don’t object
to assisted suicide, provided that the person is mentally competent and has
really thought it through for a time, and that no relief of their suffering
(subjectively experienced) is in sight. Gay marriage (or open marriage or even
a marriage of more than 2 consenting adults) is OK if other people want to do
it—though not for me. However, I don’t agree with gay rights advocates that the
prohibition of gay men’s blood donations is discriminatory. Because of the very
high rate of HIV among gay men, allowing that seems like an unnecessary risk,
especially as the need for blood transfusions is diminishing and blood donation
is not a human right. I do realize that allowing assisted suicide or gay marriage
creates a social atmosphere that may support or encourage more of those
behaviors, whereas if they were prohibited, some people might find another way.
There are societies that allow sexual contact between adults and children, even
child marriage, or that tacitly support the rape and abuse of women, honor
killings, genital mutilation, and plural marriage, behaviors that are prohibited
in the U.S. We shouldn’t pretend that our current mores are universal or are the
Ten Commandments handed down from on high.
No comments:
Post a Comment