In case anyone hasn’t noticed, Oprah’s come and gone again. Her show, now 23 years older, and presumably that much wiser, came into Williamson last Wednesday for a reprise of it’s 1987 show that was intended to showcase how America’s small towns were dealing with AIDS. Her purpose this time? To see if our attitude has changed noticeably.
The incident that precipitated her first visit could have been entitled “An Incident at a Municipal Pool”. It was a scene straight out of the film “Caddyshack”, minus the candy bar. You know, an avowed gay man, Mike Sisco, who’d been diagnosed with AIDS, goes for a swim, and before you know it, Williamson’s version of the Ted Knight character Judge Smails is saying “"I want the entire pool scrubbed, sterilized, and disinfected!"
Oprah subsequently stated that fear was the driving motivation behind the incivility directed at Mike Sisco, incivilities that culminated in this admitted overreaction by the locals. That much was made clear at the first show, that incivility in the form of rumors, etc., was the full extent of any action taken against him.
Well, this is certainly no excuse, but at the time, AIDS was a death sentence. And there was a lot of uncertainty as to how the disease was transmitted. No cocktail of drugs were available then to keep this condition at bay.
Anyway, this wasn’t the only town Oprah might have visited to gage small town America’s reaction to this condition. There were other far more egregious examples of small towns reacting badly to AIDS victims, and one example in particular comes to mind.
At about the same time the Williamson municipal pool was getting a scrub down, three young brothers, Randy, Robert, and Ricky Ray, then aged 8-10, and all hemophiliacs, had all been diagnosed with AIDS as a result of receiving clotting agents from tainted transfusions.
The difference between their hometown of Arcadia, Florida, and Williamson was that the people there didn’t stop with just rumors or other acts of incivility. No one wanted the boys in that town. And they certainly didn’t want the boys to enrol in the local grade school. For over a year, the boys were kept out. In fact, the boys’ father, Clifford Ray, was obliged to get an order from a federal court that forced the local school board to finally admit the boys.
But this did not stop the locals. The students at what would have been their new school organized a boycott against them. Meanwhile, concerned citizens busied themselves with making threatening phone calls and death threats to the Ray family.
The ultimate response to keep the boys out of Arcadia Elementary School came when someone caught the Rays gone one night, and burned the family house down. I suppose the Rays should have been grateful the arsonist waited until they were gone. With no house to live in, the Rays were forced to move, this time to an undisclosed new location in Florida.
Their oldest boy had nightmares afterwards. It was said that he blamed himself for his family’s situation. As for the townspeople, we can only guess they were able to sleep peacefully. I wonder if any of them has ever contemplated the real meaning of “Suffer the little children…”?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Other 9/11 Victims
The protests are continuing over the Islamic community center set to be built on the site of an abandoned Burlington Coat factory near Ground Zero in New York. If any of these protestors have ever passed the mosque that’s already operating four blocks from Ground Zero, none have ever given any indication of that. Nor have any of these opponents ever hinted about how they feel about a chapel that was built in the Pentagon shortly after the attack on that building that was dedicated to those victims. It is opened to people of all faiths, and on Fridays, Muslims worship there.
No, those who are opposed to the community center are centering on the idea of sensitivity to the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center and their survivors, such as Barbara Olsen and her husband, Ted Olsen. Ms. Olsen was a prominent conservative and a Fox News contributor. She had the misfortune of being in one of the planes that were used in this attack.
If anyone has the right to be offended by the idea of this community center, it would be Ted Olsen. But Mr. Olsen, who served as the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, has, in fact, defended the viewpoint expressed by President Obama, which is that no religion should be forbidden from building a house of worship if they don’t violate any local laws. Furthermore, Mr. Olsen said “… we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith.”
Why not? Perhaps Mr. Olsen knows that if we give into feelings of intolerance, mob rule is the result. And the result of mob rule? Hate crimes that don’t try to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. For instance, on Sept. 21, 2001, Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot and killed by someone upset about the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Sodhi was, in fact, a Sikh, but his killer mistook him for a Muslim.
Unlike Mr. Sodhi, Salman Hamdani was a devout Muslim. Authorities sought to question him about the attacks on the World Trade Center, to determine if he was involved. Turns out this NYPD cadet and first responder was involved: It just took some time to determine the extent of his involvement. Six months after the attack, his body was found near the North Tower. He had his medical equipment with him, and he died trying to help save the lives of others.
More recently, in Boston, a crowd misidentified a passer-by as a Muslim, and someone attacked him with the pole on which an American flag was hung. In New York, over the weekend, supporters of a group protesting the community center confronted a black man because he had on headgear that made him look like a Muslim. He is not. Though this did not end badly, it very easily could have.
Charlton Heston once answered critics of a plan to hold an NRA convention in Denver weeks after the Columbine massacre by saying that his group should not be confused with those killers because both groups owned guns. Neither should those who want to build a community center be confused with terrorists who happen to be of the same religion.
No, those who are opposed to the community center are centering on the idea of sensitivity to the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center and their survivors, such as Barbara Olsen and her husband, Ted Olsen. Ms. Olsen was a prominent conservative and a Fox News contributor. She had the misfortune of being in one of the planes that were used in this attack.
If anyone has the right to be offended by the idea of this community center, it would be Ted Olsen. But Mr. Olsen, who served as the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, has, in fact, defended the viewpoint expressed by President Obama, which is that no religion should be forbidden from building a house of worship if they don’t violate any local laws. Furthermore, Mr. Olsen said “… we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith.”
Why not? Perhaps Mr. Olsen knows that if we give into feelings of intolerance, mob rule is the result. And the result of mob rule? Hate crimes that don’t try to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. For instance, on Sept. 21, 2001, Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot and killed by someone upset about the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Sodhi was, in fact, a Sikh, but his killer mistook him for a Muslim.
Unlike Mr. Sodhi, Salman Hamdani was a devout Muslim. Authorities sought to question him about the attacks on the World Trade Center, to determine if he was involved. Turns out this NYPD cadet and first responder was involved: It just took some time to determine the extent of his involvement. Six months after the attack, his body was found near the North Tower. He had his medical equipment with him, and he died trying to help save the lives of others.
More recently, in Boston, a crowd misidentified a passer-by as a Muslim, and someone attacked him with the pole on which an American flag was hung. In New York, over the weekend, supporters of a group protesting the community center confronted a black man because he had on headgear that made him look like a Muslim. He is not. Though this did not end badly, it very easily could have.
Charlton Heston once answered critics of a plan to hold an NRA convention in Denver weeks after the Columbine massacre by saying that his group should not be confused with those killers because both groups owned guns. Neither should those who want to build a community center be confused with terrorists who happen to be of the same religion.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
On Simply Being Fair
There is a questionnaire that has made its way onto facebook that asks a simple question: “Should we put a Mosque and Islamic Supercenter at Ground Zero, yes or no?” Since this query was posted by a group that calls itself “Being Conservative”, the no is the overwhelming choice of those who have responded. Well, these sorts of polls are hardly scientific in nature, so that isn’t really a surprise.
The real premise here is that since those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center were Muslims, anything that smacks of this religion being anywhere close to Ground Zero is an affront to its victims.
The fact is, the proposed site for this building isn’t Ground Zero, but four blocks away. Still, this has caused a firestorm of protest by those who consider Ground Zero Holy Ground. For instance, a retired firefighter and father of one of the firefighters killed when responding to the attack, has been quoted as saying that since Muslims killed his son, he would be opposed to anything Islamic anywhere near this site.
The only trouble with this sort of thinking is that the casualties from 9/11 came from every background imaginable, and this includes many Muslims who were killed in the Towers or who, like the son of the firefighter, were first responders who died trying to save lives. And since this is the case, shouldn’t the families of these victims get to consider Ground Zero sacred, too? And wouldn’t it be nice if they had a convenient place of worship to honor their family members?
There are certain facts that are being overlooked in the heated debate that has developed over this issue and one would be the First Amendment: It guarantees freedom of religion, and this includes the right to be a Muslim. So, even if they were so inclined, no governmental entity can intercede.
Secondly, if four blocks away is too close to Ground Zero, then what would a more respectful distance be? In fact, if putting a Mosque up that close is insensitive, as many opponents have claimed, is there an etiquette that Muslims should observe? For instance, would it be okay if a Muslim visited Ground Zero? Or would that act be considered an affront as well?
Since when are we so angry at Muslims, in general? What was one of the reasons for the war in Iraq? Oh, yeah, we were there to help save Muslims. The fact that we may have killed over 600,000 Iraqis in this task is coincidental.
Where those who are opposed to this community center are mistaken is how they view the source of the attack on the World Trade Center. It was a terrorist attack, and was carried out by maniacs who were Muslim, but certainly not representative of the Muslim World. How do we know that? By the simple fact that every major American Muslim organization condemned the 9/11 attacks. They were joined by every major Islamic nation, including Afghanistan. The only exception was Iraq.
In the end, we really don’t have any good reason to deny New York’s Muslim community what we as Americans take for granted; a community center and a place of worship. All we need to do now is simply be fair with them.
The real premise here is that since those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center were Muslims, anything that smacks of this religion being anywhere close to Ground Zero is an affront to its victims.
The fact is, the proposed site for this building isn’t Ground Zero, but four blocks away. Still, this has caused a firestorm of protest by those who consider Ground Zero Holy Ground. For instance, a retired firefighter and father of one of the firefighters killed when responding to the attack, has been quoted as saying that since Muslims killed his son, he would be opposed to anything Islamic anywhere near this site.
The only trouble with this sort of thinking is that the casualties from 9/11 came from every background imaginable, and this includes many Muslims who were killed in the Towers or who, like the son of the firefighter, were first responders who died trying to save lives. And since this is the case, shouldn’t the families of these victims get to consider Ground Zero sacred, too? And wouldn’t it be nice if they had a convenient place of worship to honor their family members?
There are certain facts that are being overlooked in the heated debate that has developed over this issue and one would be the First Amendment: It guarantees freedom of religion, and this includes the right to be a Muslim. So, even if they were so inclined, no governmental entity can intercede.
Secondly, if four blocks away is too close to Ground Zero, then what would a more respectful distance be? In fact, if putting a Mosque up that close is insensitive, as many opponents have claimed, is there an etiquette that Muslims should observe? For instance, would it be okay if a Muslim visited Ground Zero? Or would that act be considered an affront as well?
Since when are we so angry at Muslims, in general? What was one of the reasons for the war in Iraq? Oh, yeah, we were there to help save Muslims. The fact that we may have killed over 600,000 Iraqis in this task is coincidental.
Where those who are opposed to this community center are mistaken is how they view the source of the attack on the World Trade Center. It was a terrorist attack, and was carried out by maniacs who were Muslim, but certainly not representative of the Muslim World. How do we know that? By the simple fact that every major American Muslim organization condemned the 9/11 attacks. They were joined by every major Islamic nation, including Afghanistan. The only exception was Iraq.
In the end, we really don’t have any good reason to deny New York’s Muslim community what we as Americans take for granted; a community center and a place of worship. All we need to do now is simply be fair with them.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
When (not) to amend the Constitution
The aftermath of the Civil War saw the passage of three amendments, collectively known as the Civil War Amendments. The intent of these amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, was to end slavery once and for all in the United States, and to insure that the freed slaves were granted full rights as citizens.
The political party that pushed these amendments was the Party of Lincoln. This same party today, it seems, now regrets its part in getting the 14th Amendment passed. The 14th Amendment states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, even those who had been born into slavery.
There are those who believe the Amendment was also meant to clarify who had the rights of citizenship. A lot of immigrants from all over the world were entering the U. S. at this time, and it was unsure who had the right to call themselves Americans.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and we now find ourselves embroiled in a great debate over illegal immigration into our country. Among those who are in favor of drastically curtailing entry into the U. S. are those who are sure that illegal immigrants are coming to El Norte to have their children here to insure they become American citizens.
The push is now on by leaders of the Republican Party, to include our own senior U. S. Senator, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell and the Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, R., Ohio, among others, to either change our interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or to rewrite the Amendment, so that the children of illegal immigrants would no longer have American citizenship conferred upon them.
The only trouble is, if you go back far enough, pretty much every American was an illegal immigrant at one point. I would exclude those who were brought here forcefully as slaves. They didn’t get much choice in the matter. But for a while, the doors were pretty much wide open. And people came to America from everywhere; from every part of Europe; and when laborers were needed to construct the nation’s railroads, from China, to name but two areas of the world.
Heck, Americans themselves took part in illegal immigration in the period prior to the Civil War. They crossed the northern border of Mexico into Texas and California en masse. The result was that Mexico lost quite a bit of its northern territory.
There are steps that could be taken to control illegal entry into our country that aren’t quite so dramatic. One way would be to address immigration reform in Congress. Not that this is likely. This is a perennial issue, one that no Congress has been willing to tackle. Those members of Congress who express a willingness to address the issue soon come back down to Earth, and abandon their principles lest they incur the wrath of the voters.
Does anyone think that we can succeed in altering our interpretation of the 14th Amendment? Probably not. Nor can we easily amend the Constitution. This issue has been taken up because its supporters believe it will resonant with the voters.
Anyway, it’s easier to pontificate than it is to come up with a practical solution to the immigration problem that will actually work.
The political party that pushed these amendments was the Party of Lincoln. This same party today, it seems, now regrets its part in getting the 14th Amendment passed. The 14th Amendment states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, even those who had been born into slavery.
There are those who believe the Amendment was also meant to clarify who had the rights of citizenship. A lot of immigrants from all over the world were entering the U. S. at this time, and it was unsure who had the right to call themselves Americans.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and we now find ourselves embroiled in a great debate over illegal immigration into our country. Among those who are in favor of drastically curtailing entry into the U. S. are those who are sure that illegal immigrants are coming to El Norte to have their children here to insure they become American citizens.
The push is now on by leaders of the Republican Party, to include our own senior U. S. Senator, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell and the Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, R., Ohio, among others, to either change our interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or to rewrite the Amendment, so that the children of illegal immigrants would no longer have American citizenship conferred upon them.
The only trouble is, if you go back far enough, pretty much every American was an illegal immigrant at one point. I would exclude those who were brought here forcefully as slaves. They didn’t get much choice in the matter. But for a while, the doors were pretty much wide open. And people came to America from everywhere; from every part of Europe; and when laborers were needed to construct the nation’s railroads, from China, to name but two areas of the world.
Heck, Americans themselves took part in illegal immigration in the period prior to the Civil War. They crossed the northern border of Mexico into Texas and California en masse. The result was that Mexico lost quite a bit of its northern territory.
There are steps that could be taken to control illegal entry into our country that aren’t quite so dramatic. One way would be to address immigration reform in Congress. Not that this is likely. This is a perennial issue, one that no Congress has been willing to tackle. Those members of Congress who express a willingness to address the issue soon come back down to Earth, and abandon their principles lest they incur the wrath of the voters.
Does anyone think that we can succeed in altering our interpretation of the 14th Amendment? Probably not. Nor can we easily amend the Constitution. This issue has been taken up because its supporters believe it will resonant with the voters.
Anyway, it’s easier to pontificate than it is to come up with a practical solution to the immigration problem that will actually work.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Penny pinching in the New Millennium
I can sum up the state of the economy in one figure-$15.16.
One morning last week, I began the arduous task of preparing a healthy breakfast, only to discover that I was out of my favorite sugarfree pancake syrup, Log Cabin. I was also in need of some bovine wine, so I hit the dusty trail to the local trading post.
When I got there, I got the items required-two gallons of milk and two 24-ounce bottles of Log Cabin. The price? A paltry $15.16.
Let me tell you, it’s a good thing my father wasn’t making this purchase. He wasn’t cheap, but he did know the value of a nickel, and let’s say that in the day, the buffalo on the back of this coin did bear some pinch marks by the time it left his pocket. I can only imagine his reaction to what inflation has done to the price of groceries, and it might have been good for a laugh, depending on who you asked later.
The problem is this; those responsible for setting the prices for what we need to survive here in the New Millennium must think everyone is a millionaire. For instance, we have, since the aftermath of the aught-nine Christmas snow, been dealing with the possibility of a huge increase in the rates we pay for electricity.
Yeah, I know the good people at the Public Service Commission (PSC) axed that request for a 35% increase down to what they consider a more manageable 17%, but that, in my opinion, is anything but manageable.
Well, at least the price gougers at KEP had to go to the PSC and get permission before setting off their sky rocket. Other service providers aren’t so hamstrung when it comes to ratcheting up prices.
Take property insurance. These insurance providers can raise their rates up to 23% and they needn’t tell anyone until your policy comes up for renewal. You know, you think you’re in good hands, and whammo, what was reasonable suddenly is prefixed with an un-.
Yeah, we got the renewal letter, and a request to call the agency to prepare us for the shock that was in store for us, but I was still left battling post-traumatic stress syndrome. Our home owners policy went up over $300.00 on the year. Monthly payments went from around $68 a month to around $90. Talk about seeing stars!
Of course, I complained to the Kentucky Department of Insurance, not that I thought I would get any relief, but I wanted to remonstrate with someone official. And in due time, I got a letter from this agency that said those good hands hadn’t mishandled me, and that they’d followed the law, so kindly quitcherbitchin’!
They did make the mistake of including a number for questions or complaints, but when I dialed it up, the fellow from Frankfort began to complain about how much his policy had gone up. I told him he was getting paid to listen to me, not the other way around..
Yeah, we lost. The price increase was okayed. But losing doesn’t mean you gotta quit playing the game. You just need to find some nicer playmates. I did just that, with a new agency, and a kinder, gentler premium.
One morning last week, I began the arduous task of preparing a healthy breakfast, only to discover that I was out of my favorite sugarfree pancake syrup, Log Cabin. I was also in need of some bovine wine, so I hit the dusty trail to the local trading post.
When I got there, I got the items required-two gallons of milk and two 24-ounce bottles of Log Cabin. The price? A paltry $15.16.
Let me tell you, it’s a good thing my father wasn’t making this purchase. He wasn’t cheap, but he did know the value of a nickel, and let’s say that in the day, the buffalo on the back of this coin did bear some pinch marks by the time it left his pocket. I can only imagine his reaction to what inflation has done to the price of groceries, and it might have been good for a laugh, depending on who you asked later.
The problem is this; those responsible for setting the prices for what we need to survive here in the New Millennium must think everyone is a millionaire. For instance, we have, since the aftermath of the aught-nine Christmas snow, been dealing with the possibility of a huge increase in the rates we pay for electricity.
Yeah, I know the good people at the Public Service Commission (PSC) axed that request for a 35% increase down to what they consider a more manageable 17%, but that, in my opinion, is anything but manageable.
Well, at least the price gougers at KEP had to go to the PSC and get permission before setting off their sky rocket. Other service providers aren’t so hamstrung when it comes to ratcheting up prices.
Take property insurance. These insurance providers can raise their rates up to 23% and they needn’t tell anyone until your policy comes up for renewal. You know, you think you’re in good hands, and whammo, what was reasonable suddenly is prefixed with an un-.
Yeah, we got the renewal letter, and a request to call the agency to prepare us for the shock that was in store for us, but I was still left battling post-traumatic stress syndrome. Our home owners policy went up over $300.00 on the year. Monthly payments went from around $68 a month to around $90. Talk about seeing stars!
Of course, I complained to the Kentucky Department of Insurance, not that I thought I would get any relief, but I wanted to remonstrate with someone official. And in due time, I got a letter from this agency that said those good hands hadn’t mishandled me, and that they’d followed the law, so kindly quitcherbitchin’!
They did make the mistake of including a number for questions or complaints, but when I dialed it up, the fellow from Frankfort began to complain about how much his policy had gone up. I told him he was getting paid to listen to me, not the other way around..
Yeah, we lost. The price increase was okayed. But losing doesn’t mean you gotta quit playing the game. You just need to find some nicer playmates. I did just that, with a new agency, and a kinder, gentler premium.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
