Republican Hypocrisy and Life

45,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance and cannot afford medical care.

The republican (sic) party claims to be pro-life. But whose lives are they for? Newt Gingrich has stated “If the left manages to drive through a bill which is opposed by 65 percent of the country on health care, our commitment should be simple — when we get a majority, we’re repealing the whole thing.”

So 45,000 American people die from lack of affordable medical insirance and Gingrich states he will repeal health insurance reform. What is so “pro-life” about this?

If you are a sentient, already-born person the republicans (sic) do not care whether you live or die nor do they care if you suffer horribly because of some untreated disease. If you are an embryo or fetus you have their love and protection.

Religion

I've never really understood religion; you have to accept that certain things are true and those things might seem impossible. So why do so many people believe?

The christian bible is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, and mayhem all ruled over by a very vengeful, mean-spirited god. Why does that god, if it exists, deserve anything but contempt?

So I am an atheist; life is simpler that way. I try to do the right thing and not because of an invisible sky fairy who will fry me forever if I slip up. Doing the right thing is what an ethical person will do.

Culture of Life?

When Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state President Bush and many supposedly pro-life republicans were fuming at the efforts of her husband, Michael Schiavo, to have her feeding tube removed. Ms. Schiavo was unable to swallow, see or speak because of severe brain damage. There was a bill rushed through Congress to try to force the doctors to reinsert the tube. President Bush raced back to Washington on Air Force One to sign that bill.

It is interesting to note that while governor of Texas, Bush signed the "Advanced Directives Act" which allows a patient's surrogate to make life and death decisions for that person. That law also allows a hospital, with notice to the family and after consulting the bioethics committee, to remove life-support from a patient who has no hope of recovery. The family is given a little time to find another facility to care for the patient.

And while governor of Texas, George Bush there were 131 executions of condemned prisoners. Bush has stated that he has no qualms about any of those executions.

Culture of life? Am I missing something?

And where was the president while Hurricane Katrina was devastating New Orleans? On vacation.

On Monday, the 29th of August, while New Orleans was being inundated Bush was at a birthday photo op with Sen. John McCain in Arizona and later he went to a resort to promote the new Medicare drug plan. Later that day he flew to California to another group of senior citizens to push the drug benefit.

On Tuesday, Aug 30, Bush was playing the guitar with a country singer. On Wednesday Bush finally returned to Washington, flying over the disaster zone in the process.

While Americans were dying in a flood the president was vacationing, politicking and partying? I have not reproduced the entire Katrina timeline, it is available at several web sites.

So the republicans have staked out the pro-life position. But whose lives? They seem to value one Caucasian woman with brain damage over a neighborhood full of minorities. A fertilized ovum is more valuable to them than the adult woman who carries it.

Then there are the thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of the war on their country. We rightly mourn our troops who died there but how much thought do the republicans who started the war give to the dead Iraqis?

There are some things I do not comprehend.

A Little Late

But that has never stopped me from rattling on. Warning: if you have not seen the movies or read the books *The Lord of the Rings* this post might not make a whole lot of sense. It also contains spoilers.

*Lord of the Rings,* written by J.R.R. Tolkien, is just about my favorite fiction work. It is beautifully written, the characters are worth caring about and the setting seems almost real.

Peter Jackson's films of the trilogy are incredible and beautiful; I love them. His attention to detail brings Middle Earth to life. The characters are wonderfully portrayed by the actors.

I have a few issues with those films, however. "Fellowship of the Ring," the first part of the story, is pretty true to Tolkien's story except for Aragorn. Tolkien's Aragorn accepted who he was; he never flinched from his duty to become king. Jackson's Aragorn seems unwilling to acknowledge who he is and that weakens him.

In "The Two Towers" we see more changes from Tolkien's story and because of the constraints of the movie format this is understandable. I do not like what Jackson does to Faramir in his story. Tolkien's Faramir is a much stronger person than his brother Boromir who dies because he tries to take the Ring from Frodo. He states this at his first meeting with Frodo in Ithilien. If he feels the call of the Ring we do not see it in the books. Jackson's Faramir almost repeats his brother's error but finally sees what the Ring will do.

Jackson's Faramir is pretty rough with Frodo and Gollum. I cringed seeing the abuse of Gollum at the hands (and feet) of Faramir's soldiers. Tolkien's Faramir is extremely gentle with the Hobbits and their guide; he displays true strength through kindness.

Jackson's Faramir is a weak leader while Tolkien's Faramir is described as a Captain who can master both men and beasts. Personally I prefer the Tolkien character as he is truly strong and noble; a man of Numenor.

There's a huge inconsistency in "The Two Towers." Elves show up at Helm's Deep and help save Rohan from Saruman's hordes. We never see anything of them though after the battle. Were they all killed? If so why is there no mention made of it? Did they go on to fight for Gondor? We never know.

Frodo, in Jackson's "Return of the King," is duped by Gollum into sending Sam away. Tolkien's Frodo would never have done this. Sam is not treated too well by Jackson, either; he was quite gentle with Gollum in Tolkien's story. When he tied the Elven rope to Gollum he made the knot quite loose. He didn't love Gollum but he was never mean to him. Jackson has Sam treating Gollum quite badly.

In spite of my criticism of the movie version of "Lord of the Rings" I still think it is a brilliant achievement. Is is, however, very much Peter Jackson's story rather than J.R.R. Tolkien's.

Catch Up

Wow.

Floods seem to be happening. In early August I went to Carlsbad Caverns which is an absolutely gorgeous and wonderful cave. See it if you can.

A couple of days after returning home we were hit by a flood, the second of the year. Ow. No water got into the house, thanks be, but there's an awesome mess to clean up. Several of my neighbors were not as lucky and did have soaked homes.

A berm now surrounds my place. My heartfelt thanks go to my County Commissoner Charles Gallegos and to the Road Superintendant of Socorro County. They arranged for a county equipment operator to start the berm. Benny is an artist with that front end loader. He makes operating it look easy and he also uses it as a precision tool.

My losses are nothing compared to the mess in New Orleans. I cannot imagine the devastation in the lives of the survivors. My losses seem trivial compared to theirs. I have a small idea of their feelings.

May the survivors of Katrina find peace.

Hands

A friend of mine told me that she thought her hands were ugly. She has a couple of enlarged knuckes and her nails are not perfect but I think her hands are beautiful.

My friend's hands are competent hands. She spins, knits, weaves and does glass work. She has made gorgeous sculptures from clay. Her hands can bathe a dog, fix dinner, make beautiful things. She cares for her grandson too.

Picture perfect hands with manicure-shop nails are overrated in my opinion. Give me useful hands that can do things and I'll show you truly beautiful hands.

Walking with Cats

The Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico is my home now. My place is about a mile from the Rio Grande and just across the road is a tract of government-owned land.

Most evenings I take a walk out there and the cats follow me. Taking a walk in desert arroyos with three cats is a hoot.

They usually run full speed around me, for each yard I walk they run several. They will pounce each other, chase each other and occasionally scare each other.

Few holes, which might be home to a mouse or other small critter, go unsniffed.

Much of this land is covered by mesquite "trees" (for a desert area like this they're trees, in a well-watered suburb they'd be bushes) that are 3 - 8 feet high and too thick for me to walk through. Like most desert plants it is quite thorny.

The cats love the mesquite because it is home to many chase-able things. I've never seen a cat catch anything on a walk; they sure have fun hunting and chasing.

I'm not sure why the cats need to accompany me on my evening strolls. They can get tto the arroyos without me. They can travel faster and quieter than I can. But if they are outside when I cross the road they will gallop after me. Perhaps they do not want the Filler of the Food Bowl to get lost.