What Would Jesus Cling To?

If Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

You know what? Let's save that for later.

Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.

That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.

To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.

However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."

See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!

Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."

The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.

However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.

I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.

It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.

At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.

You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.

And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?

In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.

What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.

The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").

That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."

I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.

Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.

Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.

So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.

Does This Legislation Make Me Look Fat?

In the years since Baby and I migrated from the suburbs to the deep suburbs (read: country), so too has urban sprawl migrated, and when you build a plethora of McMansions and fill them with McFamilies, you need McStores to support the McGrowth...and by "need" I mean "want," and by "support the McGrowth" I mean "cash-in on the McBoom." Struggling now are the mom-and-pops that were the backbone of our once-small town, as they are slowly being strangled by hands with fingers that look eerily like strip malls. But no growth industry has grown around here quite like the food service industry.

In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.

In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places......an Applebee's, a Friendly's, a Hardee's, a KFC, a Taco Bell, an Arby's, a Dairy Queen, a Rita's, a Ruby Tuesday's, a Bruster's, a Starbucks, three Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a couple of BBQ joints, some bagel hut, and a pretzel place (?!). Now, there is everything for everyone.

I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.

It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.

New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?

Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.

And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.

This one troubles me.

The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?

Not so fast.

How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?

Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.

That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?

So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?

Um, not so fast again.

Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?

Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"

Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.

I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?

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.