Letting Cynthia Davis speak for herself

The initial criticism from liberal pundit Keith Olbermann was that State Representative Cynthia Davis wanted to pull funding from feeding impoverished children because those children could just get jobs at McDonalds, who feed their employees for free. The criticism was that it was a "let them eat cake" mentality: that the remark was staggeringly insensitive to the problems that impoverished families were up against.

Ms. Davis responded to the criticism as follows:

We all agree on the importance of feeding children, but we differ on who should do this. I believe this duty belongs to the parents. Instead of respecting this time honored jurisdiction of the family, the summer feeding program treats families like they do not exist.

When government takes over a family function, like feeding children on a daily basis, we take a group of people who are capable and treat them like they are incapacitated. Some have a low view of parents, presuming most of them are inept and
proposing governmental intervention as the only solution.

I believe most parents are good and want the blessing and privilege of feeding their children. When families are sharing a meal around the kitchen table, much more is happening. Mealtime is the primary time for shaping values and strengthening
bonds. All of this is missing or diluted when it happens outside the family. Look into your own heart and ask, “What made a difference in my life as a child?” Was it standing in a line for a cafeteria style meal at school or was it sitting around the kitchen table with others in your family?

Ms. Davis clarified what her solution would be to make sure that the parents could feed the children themselves:

Better education can change the plight of the poor. My sincere hope is that we can lift families out of poverty through compassionate interaction with those who can show them a better way. This is why I agreed to chair an interim committee to study poverty and why I volunteered to teach a cooking class for mothers utilizing the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program to help teach young mothers how to prepare nutritious meals.

That's the problem: impoverished mothers don't spend enough time in the kitchen.

Often I feel compelled to offer my opinion on these issues. Sometimes I don't have to.

Forcibly Rape Journalists

I just heard something really interesting on Real Time with Bill Maher. They were discussing the rhetoric coming out of the Middle East (and particularly Iran) and how relations are strained by improper translation. One in particular that they focused on is the phrase "death to." When we hear them chant that, particularly in the context of "Death to America," we read it to mean that their ultimate wish is that we were all dead. In fact, that was one of the primary defenses in our torture of prisoners—they, after all, chant for our deaths!

By my approximation, the phrase "death to," though that is the direct translation, is the Farsi version of the word 'fuck.' Just as we drop the f-bomb fairly comfortably here, they use the phrase all the time there. When Ahmadinejad was handing out potatoes to people as a campaign gimmick, people who didn't support him would reply with "death to potatoes!" The person they interviewed would say it's fairly common if someone loses their car keys to exclaim, "death to my car keys. Where are they?" If someone makes a stupid mistake, they'll very commonly exclaim, "death to myself." In context, taking the saying literally is absolutely ridiculous.

Imagine the direct translation of the F-word. It's horrifying. How would people around the world react to Cheney's response to a barbed question he received from a journalist? "When the Vice President was asked a question critical regarding his associations with Halliburton, he responded casually to the reporter, 'well, I'd have to say, I hope you get forcibly raped very much.'"

I don't imagine people would think we were deserving of much respect either.

Jesus and The Worthingtons

Tomorrow begins the trial of the Worthington Family, religious zealots who allowed their daughter to die instead of healing her through medicine. I actually side with the Worthingtons on the broadest scale—specifically, that a majority of the hyper-religious are actually just self-serving detriments to society who hide behind religion because of its impenetrable veil, that they are exactly the people who are called out in the first commandment specifying that man is not the word of God.

The Worthingtons, on the other hand, are true faithful, those who stand by their beliefs whether it befits or punishes them. The question at hand, then, is whether it is the role of law to protect people like them who are victimized by dogmatic brainwashing, and more importantly, if they have the right to allow their daughter (who may not have grown up to share their beliefs) to die. It's a really difficult question, because if their daughter did grow up to share their beliefs (never mind whether the beliefs are valid), upon knowing that human medicine saved her life when she was young, she would spend her entire life believing that she was irreperably damned to Hell for something that she had no control over when she was only a year old.

Another interesting question with this case is how it relates to the pro-life movement. Under the religious pretense, it can be argued that the Worthington's actions are consistent with the pro-life dogma: mankind is not to intervene in God's Work by killing an unborn child, so similarly they are not to intervene with a born child that God intends to kill. However, the pro-life movement is increasingly set in a political framework, where it more closely pertains to our lives, and they have gone against the political mindset around kin. The political logic for outlawing abortions is straightforward—parents should not be allowed to abort a fetus, as it is a living, breathing thing, and they are no longer in a position to make the decision of whether another living human is to live or die. It is then to be inferred that The Worthingtons should not have been allowed to make a life-or-death decision with their child; rather, it is our societal responsibility to preserve the life of those who are not yet able to preserve themselves, and anyone who gets in the way (including the parents) are committing negligent homicide.

But what I'm most interested in is the metaphysical aspect of this case. Jesus was known to cure the sick. As an agnostic, I am inclined to believe that Jesus was just a man with great PR skills, not an actual divine being. Many religious historians (particularly on the humanist side) are quick to point out that through modern living, we are capable of carrying out all of the miracles that Jesus was credited for. Jesus himself said that it wasn't he who was responsible for the miracles, it was God. "God," as in "that which we are not capable of understanding." Which in Jesus's time included antibiotics. An argument can be made (which I may make someday) that Jesus himself had an advanced knowledge of antibiotic medicine, which he used to cure the sick.

Chew on that, Followers of Christ.

Subprime TARP

Good news everyone, we're out of the economic crisis! Or so say the bankers, who have returned their TARP funds to the government after deciding they can't meet the terms of the loan. (Oh, so they do understand that sometimes people default on loans.)

Actually, they can meet the conditions of the loan, they just don’t want to. Specifically, the government is placing a cap on executive salaries for any banks who have accepted loans. Essentially, the government is saying that the executives themselves have to help pay back the loan, instead of just cutting the employees. So the banks said they’d rather just give the money back. All twelve were very proud of themselves and immediately released public statements, basically saying “good news everyone—we still can’t afford to help our customers, so we’re not going to be giving out any loans, but the government did let us give back the TARP money designed to enable us to help people so that we can continue to earn huge dividends!!!”

The reason why they’re so proud of this is because the shareholders are all going to get a bigger slice because of it, and they’re taking the slice right out of the actual business they’re supposed to provide. Like the skyscraper that Portland has invested billions into making (by Nordstroms), which has been suspended indefinitely because their bank has said that they won’t front the money, even though it’s guaranteed and has already been collected from people who have dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on leases. Now the investors are trying to figure out what to do for all the businesses who paid six or seven figures for an office that they don’t have. It's like a season of LOST—just when you think that big business are the villains, you find out that they're right there with us as helpless victims of a far greater evil: the banks.

I hope the banks collapse. We’ll all be fucked in the short term, but it’s the only way we’ll ever move forward. Portland has room for a few more spangers, let the fat cats beg for change on the streets.

The truth is in the comments

Note: This blog entry has some graphic details. Read at your own risk.

The crime is too recent to have the full story, but what appears to have happened is that a woman in Tigard saw a posting online from a girl who was 9 months pregnant, and the woman wanted her baby, so she lured the girl to her house. She planned on coaxing the girl to hand over her baby, and even started out on building her alibi, spontaneously telling people she was pregnant so it wouldn't look weird when she suddenly had a baby.

When the girl came over, this woman tried to coax her into inducing labor (and may or may not have succeeded), and in any case got the baby out of her, then calmly killed the woman and stuffed her corpse under her house. The baby, not yet fully developed, was either never fully alive or died shortly after it was removed. The woman called her boyfriend and had him come over and help her bring the baby back to life. When he was unable to revive the baby, she called the police, saying it was her baby and she needed help, despite showing no signs of pregnancy, no record of having a baby, and a dead body under her house.

There is no ambiguity here. This woman, the reason doesn't matter, was not human. She was severely damaged beyond repair, she is beyond reprieve, and there is no chance that she will ever see free soil again. It's possible that she doesn't even care. At the very least, she will get life in prison for first degree murder of the mother. Then the prosecutors mentioned that if they can determine that the baby was at one point independently alive, it would qualify as a person and they could pin second-degree infanticide on her as well.

The first comments on the news report were fairly straightforward. Condolences to the victim and her family, disgust at the perpetrator. Then a couple people mentioned in passing how awful it was that they were calculating the charges on whether the baby was ever a person. One person casually states that the case makes her want to leave Oregon.

Then the floodgates open.

The pro-choicers come out against the commenter for making it political. The pro-lifers come out against the pro-choicers for not caring about the baby. The Democrats come out against pro-lifers for using the case to push their agenda. The religious conservatives come out against the Democrats for being heartless liberals. Soon everyone commenting have reduced the discussion to saying the other side are all going to hell. Nobody shows remorse for the victim anymore; the only mention of the original article is that everyone states that anyone who disagrees with them are just as bad as the psychotic murderer.

Eventually, someone from the family of the deceased have the misfortune of reading the comments on the page. A mere three and a half hours after the news is released, an acquaintance of the dead adds a comment expressing their anguish. The response is almost immediate:

heathers kin:
Most everyone would feel the same way in your position. I know I
would.

That said...

...and the debate continues. It quickly devolves into people citing statistics on the percentages of pro-lifers vs. pro-choice. Demographics on the death penalty. Geography of crimes in Multnomah County. Rights vs. Suppression of Free Speech. Within less than 28 hours, the conversation thread has devolved into calculating the margin of victory of President Obama.

The only mention remaining of the original tragedy is each side of each argument accusing the other of putting their own political agenda over the death of this poor, poor girl, whom they then use as an instance in furthering their own agenda. Commenters open with a suggestion that all dissenting opinions be removed from the website, then conclude with the pre-emptive accusation that the other side will attempt to suppress them, thus proving their point, whatever that point will be.

Well, now I'll add my two cents to the argument, because let's face it, I'm not better than any of you. I don't even know this woman, and it doesn't affect my life in any way that she's dead. My life is made worse from knowing that this psychotic killer even exists, but even the article itself points to how naive and gullible the victim was, literally to a fault. I do what I can to protect myself, and I assure you that the killer is not that difficult to outwit. Given my personal opinion, I would suggest that she be put promptly to death, and I would suggest keeping a close eye on her two kids—she's surely fucked them up by now.

Now, as far as the other politics: abortion rights, free speech, death penalty in general... I just watched the social discourse, in the span of just one day, completely forget that there's anything wrong with what happened last week. To some degree, every single one of us saw this event as an opportunity. A chance for us to make the world a little better for ourselves. And our anger is not directed at the psycotic baby-killer who caused this, but at our fellow commenters, who have commited the far worse crime of diagreeing with us.

I'm going to say that again in its own paragraph: at our basest level, we consider diversity of thought to be a greater evil than carving a baby out of an innocent woman and tossing her corpse under a house.

Now we know how tragedies like this come to pass. Evidently we have more important things to worry about.