Parents are awful people.
Okay. Maybe not all of them. Certainly not Baby and me. But many, many are.
Now I suppose you want me to actually substantiate my claim.
This week, from AP reporter John Christoffersen, comes a story out of New Haven, CT, about Jericho Scott. Jericho Scott pitches for a baseball team. That is, he used to pitch for a baseball team. You see, Jericho Scott was banned from pitching, by his own league, because his pitches are too fast for the opposing hitters.
Did I mention that Jericho Scott is a nine-year-old little leaguer?
According to Peter Noble, attorney for the Youth Baseball League of New Haven, Jericho Scott pitches too fast (around 40 mph) for the level at which the rest of the league hits. From Christoffersen:
Noble acknowledged that Jericho had not beaned any batters in the co-ed league of 8- to 10-year-olds, but say parents expressed safety concerns.
League officials say they first told [Jericho's coach Wilfred] Vidro that the boy could not pitch after a game on Aug. 13. Jericho played second base the next game on Aug. 16. But when he took the mound Wednesday, the other team walked off and a forfeit was called.
Congratulations, parents of New Haven! You have plumbed a new and woeful depth. You have managed to ban one specific child from playing because he is superior to your entire lot of children, and you have done so by using your own children's safety as a shield for your inability to cope with the fact that someone else's kid is better than yours. Nice job by you. If the pitching ban on Jericho Scott stands, and if his team (with its 8-0 record) is disbanded and the other players are distributed to the remaining teams (which will happen, per league officials, as reported by Christoffersen), then know this:
Your children might end the season finishing first, but they will not be winners.
Parental claim substantiated? Excellent! Let's move on.
When I first heard this story on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, I really wasn't surprised. In this bizarre era of youth athletics, where parents dictate that all games end in ties, and where parents insist that all players get trophies, and where parents physically attack referees (or opposing teams' players!), and where parents file lawsuits if their kids don't make the squad, why wouldn't parents do something like this, too?
I have been a personal witness to some of this embarrassing parental behavior, both as spectator and as coach. I used to think that the root of the problem was glory-by-proxy. With a child on the field, these parents, in their own minds, no longer needed to wallow in the history (revisionist or otherwise) of their own school-age athletic conquests. Instead, through use of procreation, coupled with negotiation, legislation, intimidation, litigation, or some combination (thereof), they could live a happy and vicarious existence and say, "Winning the big game is behind me now, but when my child achieves athletic greatness, so shall I achieve athletic greatness."
I have a news flash for you people. What you call negotiation, legislation, intimidation, or litigation, we call buffoonery. At those end-of-season gatherings - you know, the cookouts and pool parties and such, where we all share one last team hurrah before the calendar separates us for another year - we're not laughing with you; we're laughing at you. And when we see your child, we don't think, "Oh, there's Johnny with the great arm! Lucky kid!" We think, "Oy, there's Johnny with the crazy dad. Poor kid."
I thought I'd clue you in, because it's never too late for you to change.
Or perhaps it is too late. I read something else recently that leads me to believe that the "by-proxy" portion of "glory-by-proxy" is no longer necessary. (Sorry, child athletes. Your latest moment in the sun, no matter how dysfunctional it was, might have been your last.)
In a disturbing article in the Health section of The Washington Post (8/5/2008), writer Laura S. Jones tells a well-documented tale about the increased use in performance-enhancing drugs and other substances in amateur athletes. And by "amateur," I don't mean athletes in the amateur ranks on the path to, or even on the verge of, turning pro. I mean everyday neighborhood jocks: your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, even Larry from Accounting. One excerpt from Jones:
...experts say a growing number [of amateur athletes] are using painkillers, caffeine (in pill and standard liquid form), decongestants and asthma drugs to get an edge by increasing their energy and the flow of oxygen-carrying blood.
Those asthma drugs include inhalers, because really, injection and ingestion might not be fast enough; sometimes sucking it is the only way to go. But if these choices don't get the job done, here's another excerpt, quoting an athlete posting suggestions online:
"Just tell a doc you tried Tramadol [a prescription opiate] for back pain and it worked great. Then take it with caffeine 30 minutes before a race for a big boost."
Is this what people have become? Rather than accept the fact that they cannot compete at the desired level in Sport A, and either adjust their expectations or move on to Sport B, they instead pump their bodies with Sudafed, Red Bull, and a toot? For what? To finish 23rd instead of 35th? To finish 4th instead of 6th? To have bragging rights and maybe a trophy? How keen.
Once people decide to negotiate, legislate, intimidate, or litigate their own conscience, once they decide that it's okay to abuse substances for the purpose of enhancing their own performance, once they are willing to trample sportsmanship in the name of glory, they might as well save the money, spare the health risk, and simply ban anyone better than they are from competing against them.
The best they can do is finish first. They certainly can't be winners.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
About That R-Word...
Last weekend saw the opening of the action comedy movie Tropic Thunder, starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black. I'm not much of a Ben Stiller guy; some of his stuff is okay, some not so much. Ultimately, I think his parents are funnier than he could ever hope to be. The premise of the film (which Stiller directed and co-wrote): a bunch of movie stars making a jungle combat picture suddenly find themselves part of real jungle combat. Hilarity ensues. The film was only on my radar because of the 3.2 million commercials I'd seen for it. Other than that, I hadn't paid much attention.
Once the protests began, I started paying attention.
In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)
At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."
Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."
For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)
To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.
To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.
First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.
This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)
The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.
As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.
The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.
Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?
Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?
If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.
If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.
Once the protests began, I started paying attention.
In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)
At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."
Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."
For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)
To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.
To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.
First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.
This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)
The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.
As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.
The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.
Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?
Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?
If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.
If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
NO PAIN (for them), NO GAIN (for us)
I used to think that self-esteem issues were found only within specific groups. For example:
- Overweight Women, who are made to feel inadequate because Hollywood, Madison Avenue, MTV, and myriad others declare that one's beauty is best defined by how well you can see that person actually digest a breath mint
- Nerdy Guys, who are made to feel inadequate because they live in their parents' basements and can translate the Magna Carta from English to Vulcan without using an English-to-Vulcan dictionary
- Old Men, who are bombarded with advertising that tells them their women (should they have actual women in the first place) won't be happy until the little blue pill inspires the little purple man to create little white swimmers
But as I have given this more thought, I have concluded that our society, as a whole, has a serious self-esteem problem.
My detractors might disagree. They would do this, of course, because they have a serious self-esteem problem.
The Germans have a word. The Germans have many words, actually, but I'm thinking of one in particular: SCHADENFREUDE. According to dictionary.com, "schadenfreude" is a noun meaning "[p]leasure derived from the misfortunes of others." Simply put, we feel better when others feel worse. Sure, it sounds like Corporate America or a Yankees game, and it is...but it's also much more. It's a self-esteem problem.
I suppose you could trace the roots of schadenfreude all the way back to the Christians and the lions, but really, the Christians weren't so much the victims of misfortune as they were the Washington Generals of their time.
For something a little more modern and relatable, head to the 1950s and Candid Camera, a well-produced television show where unsuspecting rubes were lampooned after falling for contrived scenarios in front of hidden cameras, all for the amusement of viewers. Is it schadenfreude? It's not misfortune, we rationalize, if the mark laughs along at the end, right?
Fast forward 40 years to the gritty realism of COPS. How sublime! Throw a cameraman in a cop car, roll film, and take your pick of shirtless criminals, incoherent criminals, or shirtless incoherent criminals, one of whom might remind us of someone we went to high school with. Is it schadenfreude? Hey, misfortune means "bad luck," and a life of crime - or at least a life of really stupid decisions - isn't bad luck, we rationalize, it's poor choices, right?
The following year brings us directly into our families', friends', and neighbors' lives with America's Funniest Home Videos. The premise is simple: spend one hour per week watching home movies of viewers' embarrassing moments. Grandma loses her dentures doing the Macarena at a wedding? What a hoot! Fido snatches Uncle Dave's toupee off his head at the family reunion? Priceless! Junior's line-drive teaches Dad a sudden lesson in blunt force crotch trauma? Always hysterical! Is it schadenfreude? How much misfortune can there be, we rationalize, when the mark hopes to win a cash prize at the end of the night, right?
But some things in life that start harmlessly enough become habits that need to be fed. A smoke becomes a pack. A glass becomes a bottle. A Cheez Doodle becomes...well, a bag of Cheez Doodles. Our gladness that it was some other schlub who played patsy on Candid Camera becomes our joy that our life-choices haven't landed us on COPS, which becomes our glee that we didn't pirouette into our wedding cake and still lose the money on AFV. But now we're so accustomed to feeling better when others feel bad, not even affable AFV host Tom Bergeron can offer enough groin shots to keep our good feeling rolling.
So, what do we do? We take schadenfreude on a road trip!
We prevent a car from merging in front of us, so instead it must merge behind us. We gain 15 feet. At a conservative average of 60 MPH, that will get us to our destination 0.1706484 seconds sooner than the guy we just boxed-out. We are better because he is worse.
We volunteer to coach youth athletics not as a way of interacting with our own kids, but instead to win at all costs. During a 3-on-3 U12 girls recreational soccer tournament, we harass an official into red-carding a girl on the other team due to play that we think is too physical! The girl isn't red-carded, but we get into her head, and her team loses the tournament. We are better because she is worse.
We are jealous of the guy's sports car we park next to in the mall parking lot because we want one but cannot afford it (and thus, do not get the hot girl that is attracted to it). We key the car. We are better because he is worse.
And so on.
What seems like nothing more than a few innocent television shows actually represents a behavioral pattern that has grown into confidence-by-attrition, and has moved the spectacle of others' woe out of the little magic box in the living room and into our everyday lives.
It's almost as if, in our collective psyche, we think there is a person in this country who is ranked #1, and another person in this country who is ranked #300,000,000. We then rank ourselves somewhere in between, and we spend our lives jockeying for position to get closer to the top. But "closer to the top" is about as relative a term as you can get. If we are ranked #173,241,003 and we block out a fellow driver, which puts us at a whopping #173,241,002. Is it worth it?
The answers rest with you. I'm going to take some time to seriously ponder my answer to that same question...just as soon as I finish surfing TMZ.com for the latest in mug shot chic. I'm feeling a little down today.
- Overweight Women, who are made to feel inadequate because Hollywood, Madison Avenue, MTV, and myriad others declare that one's beauty is best defined by how well you can see that person actually digest a breath mint
- Nerdy Guys, who are made to feel inadequate because they live in their parents' basements and can translate the Magna Carta from English to Vulcan without using an English-to-Vulcan dictionary
- Old Men, who are bombarded with advertising that tells them their women (should they have actual women in the first place) won't be happy until the little blue pill inspires the little purple man to create little white swimmers
But as I have given this more thought, I have concluded that our society, as a whole, has a serious self-esteem problem.
My detractors might disagree. They would do this, of course, because they have a serious self-esteem problem.
The Germans have a word. The Germans have many words, actually, but I'm thinking of one in particular: SCHADENFREUDE. According to dictionary.com, "schadenfreude" is a noun meaning "[p]leasure derived from the misfortunes of others." Simply put, we feel better when others feel worse. Sure, it sounds like Corporate America or a Yankees game, and it is...but it's also much more. It's a self-esteem problem.
I suppose you could trace the roots of schadenfreude all the way back to the Christians and the lions, but really, the Christians weren't so much the victims of misfortune as they were the Washington Generals of their time.
For something a little more modern and relatable, head to the 1950s and Candid Camera, a well-produced television show where unsuspecting rubes were lampooned after falling for contrived scenarios in front of hidden cameras, all for the amusement of viewers. Is it schadenfreude? It's not misfortune, we rationalize, if the mark laughs along at the end, right?
Fast forward 40 years to the gritty realism of COPS. How sublime! Throw a cameraman in a cop car, roll film, and take your pick of shirtless criminals, incoherent criminals, or shirtless incoherent criminals, one of whom might remind us of someone we went to high school with. Is it schadenfreude? Hey, misfortune means "bad luck," and a life of crime - or at least a life of really stupid decisions - isn't bad luck, we rationalize, it's poor choices, right?
The following year brings us directly into our families', friends', and neighbors' lives with America's Funniest Home Videos. The premise is simple: spend one hour per week watching home movies of viewers' embarrassing moments. Grandma loses her dentures doing the Macarena at a wedding? What a hoot! Fido snatches Uncle Dave's toupee off his head at the family reunion? Priceless! Junior's line-drive teaches Dad a sudden lesson in blunt force crotch trauma? Always hysterical! Is it schadenfreude? How much misfortune can there be, we rationalize, when the mark hopes to win a cash prize at the end of the night, right?
But some things in life that start harmlessly enough become habits that need to be fed. A smoke becomes a pack. A glass becomes a bottle. A Cheez Doodle becomes...well, a bag of Cheez Doodles. Our gladness that it was some other schlub who played patsy on Candid Camera becomes our joy that our life-choices haven't landed us on COPS, which becomes our glee that we didn't pirouette into our wedding cake and still lose the money on AFV. But now we're so accustomed to feeling better when others feel bad, not even affable AFV host Tom Bergeron can offer enough groin shots to keep our good feeling rolling.
So, what do we do? We take schadenfreude on a road trip!
We prevent a car from merging in front of us, so instead it must merge behind us. We gain 15 feet. At a conservative average of 60 MPH, that will get us to our destination 0.1706484 seconds sooner than the guy we just boxed-out. We are better because he is worse.
We volunteer to coach youth athletics not as a way of interacting with our own kids, but instead to win at all costs. During a 3-on-3 U12 girls recreational soccer tournament, we harass an official into red-carding a girl on the other team due to play that we think is too physical! The girl isn't red-carded, but we get into her head, and her team loses the tournament. We are better because she is worse.
We are jealous of the guy's sports car we park next to in the mall parking lot because we want one but cannot afford it (and thus, do not get the hot girl that is attracted to it). We key the car. We are better because he is worse.
And so on.
What seems like nothing more than a few innocent television shows actually represents a behavioral pattern that has grown into confidence-by-attrition, and has moved the spectacle of others' woe out of the little magic box in the living room and into our everyday lives.
It's almost as if, in our collective psyche, we think there is a person in this country who is ranked #1, and another person in this country who is ranked #300,000,000. We then rank ourselves somewhere in between, and we spend our lives jockeying for position to get closer to the top. But "closer to the top" is about as relative a term as you can get. If we are ranked #173,241,003 and we block out a fellow driver, which puts us at a whopping #173,241,002. Is it worth it?
The answers rest with you. I'm going to take some time to seriously ponder my answer to that same question...just as soon as I finish surfing TMZ.com for the latest in mug shot chic. I'm feeling a little down today.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Conservatives Go Pro-Choice
Imagine it's Friday. You have just finished a grueling week of shuffling papers from the IN basket to the OUT basket. You and your Sweetie rendezvous at your favorite haunt for dinner. The martinis are great, but when the main course arrives, something is not right. Oh sure, Sweetie is eager to dive into that delicious lobster tail on the plate, but your filet mignon is nowhere to be found. When you ask the waitress about the status of your entree, she replies, "I find it morally reprehensible to eat meat on Fridays. As such, not only will I not eat meat on Fridays, I will not be a party to anyone else eating meat on Fridays."
Now, imagine the filet mignon is healthcare. Maybe you should have done brunch instead.
In the July 31, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, a Page One (above the fold) story, as reported by Rob Stein, is best summarized in its opening two sentences:
A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.
The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
Simply put, Uncle Sam wants to close his wallet to any federally subsidized healthcare provider that does not let employees choose to abstain from job responsibilities with which he/she morally disagrees. Both sides, for the most part, see this as an abortion issue of the science-versus-ideology variety. There is no meal-based metaphor for that one.
The rest of Stein's piece presents arguments for and against the proposal. The Conservative side champions, among other things, the protection of workers who "...are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant." The Liberal side wants to safeguard against, among other things, "...[defining] abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg...."
I have issues with this proposal. Surprise.
First, the whole setup smacks of a Constitutional end-around. Conservatives cannot legally deny a woman her right to choose, so instead they try to make the fulfillment of that choice as difficult as possible by cutting healthcare funding. Hmm. This sounds familiar. In broader terms, one political party disagrees with a core ruling that it cannot change, so it attempts to cripple that ruling indirectly by striking at the periphery. Double hmm. It sounds doubly familiar. In more focused (albeit focused elsewhere) terms, Liberals cannot legally deny a person the right to own a gun, so instead they try to make owning that gun as useless as possible by banning bullets. I knew I heard it somewhere before. Attempting to ban bullets has never worked because...it's a Constitutional end-around. Why should this proposal be different?
Second, there's a phrase for how the administration wants to categorize the healthcare workers who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, etc. According to the Selective Service's website (SSS.gov), the phrase represents "...one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." Yes, the description is militarily based, but you can use the phrase to fit non-military situations such as this one. That phrase is "Conscientious Objector." Just as Selective Service allows someone to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in combat, the new proposal allows someone who opposes abortion to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in the performance of the medical procedure. This begs only one question: If military Conscientious Objectors are called "Draft Dodgers," what do you call medical Conscientious Objectors? "Health Haters?"
Look, even if the proposal is altruistic, even if the administration has no agenda other than the best interest of employees in the workforce, even if the only partisanship is that being generated by the media and their audience, then there is only one issue to be had with the proposal: Why should we let employees off the hook for responsibilities they knew they would have?
Job duties cannot be selected a la carte. As employees of any business, people are - and should be - expected to perform ALL of the duties of the jobs they are paid for, the jobs they were hired for, the jobs they applied for. I begrudge no one his or her beliefs. If a person is opposed to something, I support their right to that opposition; what I don't support is the abandonment of common sense in the guise of moral self-righteousness.
If you oppose meat on Fridays, and restaurants serve meat on Fridays, why choose to work in a restaurant?
If you oppose war, and the Armed Services conduct wars, why choose to enlist in the Armed Services?
If you oppose birth control, and pharmacies dispense birth control pills, why choose to work in a pharmacy?
If you answered "the money" or "the schedule" or "the opportunity" or "the education" or "the benefits" or "the experience" or "the travel" or any other reason to take any of those jobs, or any other jobs that might pose moral dilemmas, then you made your choice. Live with it. You chose something superficial over your beliefs, which speaks volumes about how important those beliefs must be to you in the first place. Don't ask Mommy, Daddy, or dear old Uncle Sam to bail you out of this one.
Now, imagine the filet mignon is healthcare. Maybe you should have done brunch instead.
In the July 31, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, a Page One (above the fold) story, as reported by Rob Stein, is best summarized in its opening two sentences:
A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.
The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
Simply put, Uncle Sam wants to close his wallet to any federally subsidized healthcare provider that does not let employees choose to abstain from job responsibilities with which he/she morally disagrees. Both sides, for the most part, see this as an abortion issue of the science-versus-ideology variety. There is no meal-based metaphor for that one.
The rest of Stein's piece presents arguments for and against the proposal. The Conservative side champions, among other things, the protection of workers who "...are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant." The Liberal side wants to safeguard against, among other things, "...[defining] abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg...."
I have issues with this proposal. Surprise.
First, the whole setup smacks of a Constitutional end-around. Conservatives cannot legally deny a woman her right to choose, so instead they try to make the fulfillment of that choice as difficult as possible by cutting healthcare funding. Hmm. This sounds familiar. In broader terms, one political party disagrees with a core ruling that it cannot change, so it attempts to cripple that ruling indirectly by striking at the periphery. Double hmm. It sounds doubly familiar. In more focused (albeit focused elsewhere) terms, Liberals cannot legally deny a person the right to own a gun, so instead they try to make owning that gun as useless as possible by banning bullets. I knew I heard it somewhere before. Attempting to ban bullets has never worked because...it's a Constitutional end-around. Why should this proposal be different?
Second, there's a phrase for how the administration wants to categorize the healthcare workers who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, etc. According to the Selective Service's website (SSS.gov), the phrase represents "...one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." Yes, the description is militarily based, but you can use the phrase to fit non-military situations such as this one. That phrase is "Conscientious Objector." Just as Selective Service allows someone to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in combat, the new proposal allows someone who opposes abortion to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in the performance of the medical procedure. This begs only one question: If military Conscientious Objectors are called "Draft Dodgers," what do you call medical Conscientious Objectors? "Health Haters?"
Look, even if the proposal is altruistic, even if the administration has no agenda other than the best interest of employees in the workforce, even if the only partisanship is that being generated by the media and their audience, then there is only one issue to be had with the proposal: Why should we let employees off the hook for responsibilities they knew they would have?
Job duties cannot be selected a la carte. As employees of any business, people are - and should be - expected to perform ALL of the duties of the jobs they are paid for, the jobs they were hired for, the jobs they applied for. I begrudge no one his or her beliefs. If a person is opposed to something, I support their right to that opposition; what I don't support is the abandonment of common sense in the guise of moral self-righteousness.
If you oppose meat on Fridays, and restaurants serve meat on Fridays, why choose to work in a restaurant?
If you oppose war, and the Armed Services conduct wars, why choose to enlist in the Armed Services?
If you oppose birth control, and pharmacies dispense birth control pills, why choose to work in a pharmacy?
If you answered "the money" or "the schedule" or "the opportunity" or "the education" or "the benefits" or "the experience" or "the travel" or any other reason to take any of those jobs, or any other jobs that might pose moral dilemmas, then you made your choice. Live with it. You chose something superficial over your beliefs, which speaks volumes about how important those beliefs must be to you in the first place. Don't ask Mommy, Daddy, or dear old Uncle Sam to bail you out of this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)