Texas Capitol Off Limits to the Handicapped

Last week, I spent some time at the Texas Capitol visiting legislative offices and attending hearings. I was reminded that the Texas Capitol is essentially off limits to the disabled. Because of security, there is no handicapped parking available to the public within a block of the Capitol. Even then, there is remarkably little handicapped parking available anywhere around that building. The Visitor's parking garage is over two blocks away. The only drop-off areas are at least a block away from the Capitol. This does not see to bother our legislators one whit.

"Ah," they will say, "Look at the people in wheelchairs who visit us."

Of course, some people in motorized wheelchairs can get to the Capitol. They have their own transportation.

How many people on crutches do you see? How many with a cane? Or perhaps with a bad limp?

Very few.

Before my hip replacement, I found it extremely daunting to go to my state's capitol. I had to plan carefully. I would park as close as I could with my disabled parking permit, then begin the hike to the Capitol. I tried to park where my walk would allow me to rest frequently and let the pain subside before proceeding. I would perch wherever I could until I felt able to proceed. Many times, I wondered if I would make it, but there was no alternative.

This arrangement has advantages for the legislature. Lack of access means they are not bothered by those pesky cripples. Oh, they have to put up with those in wheelchairs, but that is only a small fraction of the mobility impaired. If legislators never have to see the less than physically perfect during a legislative session, then they don't have to consider their needs. Afterall, if there are so many disabled, wouldn't more visit their offices? The elderly can be ignored for the same reasons. Who wants a bunch of hobbling seniors cluttering up the place?

Is there any solution?

I do not want security weakened. I understand the need to control parking near the Capitol. I propose a shuttle service from the Capitol to the Visitor's parking garage. Use modified golf carts to carry the public to and from the Capitol's doors. The shuttles should run as long as the legislature is in session and on any day as long as there are hearings being held.

If shuttles are not the answer, then perhaps the legislature could find other means. If more officers are available to examine vehicles, then cars, after careful examination, could drop the handicapped at the north doors of the Capitol. I would even submit to a background check, if it meant I did not face that hike to the Capitol to exercise my right to speak.

Texas should allow all its citizens to frequent the halls of the legislature. Make the disabled full citizens of Texas.

Photos by David Berkowitz

Tea Bags to Washington

I received an email from a friend in my Sunday School class this morning. The missive was a general tirade against any bailout spending, similar in tone to the Rick Santelli tirade. I will not address the simplistic thinking behind the tirade or the lack of Christian love contained in such a message. Suffice it to say that the underlying assumption of misbehavior on the part of all needing help is questionable. Even if all had misbehaved, Christ instructed us to love our enemies and if financial miscreants are enemies, which I doubt, I believe Christ would have wanted to help them. Moreover, who are we to judge?

My focus was on the instruction to mail a tea bag to Washington on April 1, 2009. The idea is a new American Tea Party, a way of protest. While I think the underlying protest is misguided, I believe fully that those who support this anti-Obama tirade have every right to complain. However, I believe these protesters have chosen an absurd and deleterious method of protest.

Tea bags should not be mailed anywhere unless they are completely empty. What if a tea bag punctures while in route? Tea all over post office machines is not a pleasant thought. What will loose tea leaves do to the machinery? Nothing good, I bet. Of course, the sight of a strange substance contaminating a sorting center will lead to a security shutdown of that site which it should. How does a worker know that the crumbled leaves are pristine? What if the tea has been mixed with a toxic substance? The Post Office could be disabled nationwide.

If the tea bag stuffed envelopes do make it through the post office machinery unharmed, what will happen when they reach their destination, say the White House. A squishy envelope will surely not survive security. How much extra will it cost us, the taxpayers, for the additional security to scrutinize each of these envelopes? I suspect that even if empty teabags were sent, they would have to be examined to determine what substances they contain or contained. Either way, a taxpayer expense. Isn't taxpayer expense being protested?

What will keep a terrorist from using this protest to slip an illicit substance into the mail? Remember anthrax? Think of hundreds of poison-laced tea bags making their way through the mail to Washington. How many would make it to their destination? How many would harm people on the way? Even if there were only one such poisoned tea bag mailed, how could it be stopped except by finding all such mailings? One person growing careless because of the deluge of tea bags would be all that is necessary for a disaster.

A new American Tea Party would be better held on the local level. Throw teabags at each other, don't endanger the rest of us.


Photo by House of Sims

An Open Letter to Texas Senators

I am a Texan. I had an ancestor who fought at the battle of San Jacinto and died in the Mexican-American War. One great-great grandfather fought for the Confederacy and walked home to central Texas from Louisiana after the war. One great-great grandfather provided the only vote against secession in his county and remained a staunch Unionist all his life. Like many Texans, I have Native American blood although now much diluted. My ancestors were Cherokee and Choctaw. Some of my ancestors served as Texas Rangers.

Why do I provide this information? I do not want to be dismissed as some johnny-come-lately liberal whose views are not representative of Texans.

Plenty of us believe as I do, but in Texas today our voices are dimmed because those of conservatives are so much louder and better organized. Our time is coming. The change can be seen in our legislature as the demographics shift to the urban and minorities.

With all this said, I wish to address my two Senators. I have only one question: Are you doing your best for the citizens of this nation?

From my perspective, you are not.

Senator Cronyn, you were a yes-man to George Bush, now you have become a no-man to Barack Obama. Senator Cronyn, you have not had a positive statement this year. Your goal is partisanship; split the voters, scare the voters to elect more Republics.

We are in an economic crisis, where are the statemen?

Once I thought you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, were a moderate, but that was before you planned to run for Governor of Texas. Now, you parrot the conservative Republic line that the stimulus bill has spending that is not stimulative.

After reviewing the statements of many economists, the one certainty I have come away with is that all government spending provides stimulus. The only misstep in the New Deal occurred when FDR reduced government spending to balance the budget. We need the new stimulus bill.

I ask you, my Senators, to forget your personal gain and become statesmen that put your country's welfare before your own.

Harry Reid and the Voluntary Income Tax

I received an email from a friend denigrating Harry Reid for not answering the question. When I watched this video, I discovered that the two men were deliberately talking past each other and each was correct in what he said. Harry Reid repeatedly agreed with Jan Helfeld that a taxpayer must pay taxes or face civil and criminal penalties, although, as Reid pointed out, criminal penalties are very rare. Tax evasion penalties are usually civil, fines or liens. Helfeld focused on the coercive nature of the income tax while Reid focused on the voluntary aspect of the tax system.

We are allowed to do everything within legal means to minimize our taxes. We are not forced to pay the maximum owed, hence the voluntary nature of our income tax. Reid was correct that many countries designate the tax to be paid and there is no way to change that amount. Helfeld was correct that we must pay whatever tax we owe once we have minimized it.

Of course, Helfeld deliberately chose inflammatory language knowing that Reid would not agree with his terminology. No sensible person thinks that physical force will be used against them if they do not pay their taxes. Helfeld's question conjured up just such an image of physical force.

Reid failed to focus on the inflammatory nature of Helfeld's question. By discussing the voluntary nature of our system, Reid played directly into Helfeld's hands. Reid also did a lousy job of explaining that voluntary nature. He fumbled with the issue and botched his answer. Nevertheless, he is not an idiot as my friend stated, but a lawyer trying to explain a complicated issue in layman's terms and failing miserably.

Tax Cuts for Small Business

Much economic discussion in the last few weeks has centered on tax cuts and the stimulus package. Conservatives have decried the tax cuts for people who pay no taxes; even though, low income wage earners pay into Social Security. This tax cut would also help the small business person, especially, sole proprietors.

I am a sole proprietor. Many years I owe no income tax, but always have to pay the full amount of my Social Security contribution, both the employer's contribution and the employee's. In a bad year, this is a real burden. If the Congress wanted to really help the smallest of businesses, then they would do more than give a $500 dollar tax rebate.

For any sole proprietor paying no income tax, but incurring a Social Security contribution over $1000.00, a rebate of half their Social Security tax would be a boost. This money would not be saved, but put immediately into the economy. In my case, I would buy a new computer.

If Republics really wanted to help small business, they would support this rebate. If someone starting a small business knew that the Social Security contribution would not be any worse than that of a wage earner if they had large expenses or a bad year, then more might venture into business. Those small businesses suffering by the downturn would also find relief, perhaps enough to survive this bad economy. All in all, this would be a real tax cut for small business.

Photo by stickwithjosh

Could Jesus Vote in Texas?

The Texas Senate plans to enact a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. The majority says it is to prevent voter fraud. This, of course, is not the purpose. The purpose is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as the majority in the Senate desires.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." The Texas Senate is determined to put lie to that.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. This means you must be able to pay for those documents. In addition, you must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken. If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that the majority of our Senate wants to disenfranchise.

Texans should be ashamed, but like their senators, too many would rather not see these people vote. "Afterall, if these people were fit to vote, they could get an ID, " is now the mantra.

Jesus said what we do to the least of these, we do to Him. Could Jesus vote in Texas?


Photo by trainmn74

Walking the Black Dog

I have been "walking the black dog" lately. I am broke, my health is going and I see nothing better ahead. This world has no place for people without money.

I have made so many mistakes that I guess I deserve this bleak future. I never worried before because I always believed God would take care of me. Now, I fear that he does not care for the individual, only for his grand plan. Our reward must be in heaven then, not here.

Somehow, I think that there should be help for the individual. I learned when I faced our city council though that government doesn't care for the rights of the individual. I was told that directly by numerous city council assistants.

Who do we matter to, then?

Not friends. They are all afraid I will ask them for money. Not family. No one even pays attention to whether I am dead or alive. Not my church. You must have money even to attend a senior activity. It is a sin to be in need, not successful.

To God, who does not answer? I just don't understand anymore.

Media Against Senator Clinton

I was channel hopping today and found MSNBC once more going after Senator Clinton. Tim Russert had two guests who really had their knives out for her. There was no one to present to voice opposition to the comments or to give Senator Clinton’s true views. This was one-sided journalism at its worst. Evidently, NBC has dropped all pretense of fairness. Senator Obama is their candidate and their goal is to get him elected by destroying Senator Clinton.

I did not start out as a fan of Senator Clinton, but after my favorite candidate withdrew I realized my choice was between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I believed that Senator Clinton’s health plan was superior, so I decided to vote for her.

The media’s treatment of Senator Clinton has turned me into an ardent supporter. The male bias against Senator Clinton is mind-blowing. A good example is Keith Olbermann. One night in the last two weeks he went on a rant about someone in the Clinton camp saying that Fox news was fairer to Senator Clinton. How could that be he said, then listed every bad thing he claimed Fox had said about Senator Clinton. It was indeed a laundry list of negativity. Of course, what he neglected to point out was that Fox has been just as negative about Senator Obama, so the laundry list Olbermann could have given concerning Senator Obama was not mentioned. Conveniently, that left only a negative list about Senator Clinton in the minds of the viewers. I believe that was the whole point of his rant. Fox News is indeed fairer.

This morning Bob Schieffer went out of his way to state that Senator Clinton was telling superdelegates that Senator Obama could not be elected because of his race. Never has anyone come forward that has said that Senator Clinton even hinted that race was the disqualifier. Experience, Reverend Wright, but not race, may limit Senator Obama’s capabilities. Schieffer offered absolutely no corroboration for his statement, but now that thought has been planted in CBS viewers’ minds. The good, old boys are really at work.

The big networks may succeed in making Senator Obama the next Democratic Party candidate for President, but I, for one, will not forget their shabby treatment of Senator Clinton, nor, their equally ludicrous treatment of women in general. If the networks wish to reduce their market share, they have found the right approach. Instead of turning on a news channel or watching the national news at six, I turn to the internet. I expect this to continue as long as men control the networks, but I will not forget.

County Democratic Convention in Texas

I attended the Democratic Party County convention on March 29th. To say it was chaos is an understatement. A twenty minute drive turned into an hour and a half because of a traffic bottleneck. When I reached the Expo Center where the convention was being held, all the close handicapped parking was gone. Absolutely no provision had been made for people like me. I was using a walker, not a wheelchair, so distance from the meeting place was very important. I did manage to make the walk from my car to the Expo Center, but only because I had taken a potent painkiller before I left home. I wonder how many gave up either waiting in the traffic jam or when they realized how far they would have to walk. I do think this location discriminated against the old and the handicapped and therefore against Clinton supporters. I do not think this was a coincidence.

I was directed to the wrong line to check in. Luckily, I used my walker shamelessly to cut in front of people. I really hate to do that, but the ball of my femur is dying and has partially collapsed, so I am walking on dying bone. I cannot stand for any length of time. When I reached the correct line, my name was not on the list. More frustration.

I went looking for my precinct in an arena that was not designed for the handicapped. I entered on the north side, my precinct was on the south side. I could not walk across the arena because the only way down to the arena floor were steep steps. Around the arena I trudged. I was so thankful I had taken the painkiller because even with it, I was hurting.

I reached the other side of the arena and discovered that my precinct was at the top of the bleachers, at least twenty or more steep steps away. As I stared upward, a true gentleman asked if he could help. I told him if he could carry my walker up, I would be grateful. He agreed. Without the walker, I clutched the railing and worked my way up. Once I reached my precinct, I sat down. The gentleman found a place to store the walker. I knew I would not go anywhere else if I could help it.

One of my fellow delegates offered to help with my credential problem. She took my voter registration card and headed off into the chaos of the arena. I really doubted that I would get to vote.

Our precinct was not only high up, but also directly under the air conditioning vents. As the day wore on I got colder and colder, but there was no escape. The narrow metal benches were icy cold and very uncomfortable. Truly, the convention site had been picked for the young and healthy.

Miracles do happen. The woman who took my voter registration card returned with an election official who was able to sign me in and give me a delegate card. I could vote.

The Obama supporters outnumbered us 54 to 14. Three of the Clinton supporters did not show, perhaps discouraged by the crowds or just the location. Nevertheless, we were able to elect one delegate for Clinton out of the five for our entire precinct. We could not elect an alternate.

As I looked at the younger Obama supporters, I came to believe that these caucus sessions are inherently discriminatory because they favor the young, who do not have family commitments, the healthy, who can withstand the physical challenges, and the wealthy because they can afford to hire assistance at home, so they are free to participate.

Senator Clinton, Drop-out, and Senator Obama, Drop-out

I have grown weary of the media and Obama's supporters constant chant of "Drop-out Hillary." Time and again, commentators whine that Senator Clinton cannot win, that the way they calculate she will not have as many delegates as Senator Obama by the time of the Democratic convention. What these pundits neglect to say is that Senator Obama cannot win either. By convention time, he may be ahead in delegates but he will not have enough to win the nomination without the vote of the superdelegates. Neither can win without the superdelegates.

Obama supporters are especially disingenuous, saying that for the good of the party, Senator Clinton should drop-out. The only good they are thinking of is their candidate's. The media parrots the Obama line. Many people in states that have not voted yet in the Democratic Party process want to be able to participate. Those people have a right to have their votes count, too. What do the Obama people fear? A dismal showing in the final primaries by their candidate? Is that why they want to disenfranchise so many?

I suggest that Senator Obama drop-out in the interest of the party. His unknowns are coming home to roost. By the time he reaches the main event, independents will be running to McCain. Let's put it bluntly, he is losing the independent white vote because of his association with a church that seems to have harbored anti-American sentiments. In the last week, three different people I know well, not Democrats, not Republicans, have told me that they can no longer support Obama. Everyone admired his speech on race, everyone thought it did not address the issue.

I can understand staying with a church despite the pastor, but that was not Senator Obama's explanation. He stayed because he had not heard the pastor's hate speech. Once he heard that speech, he did not leave because the pastor had retired. I would have argued that a church is not the pastor, that a church is its people. A church with wonderful people that tolerates an aging pastor is one scenario, a church that endorses the preaching of an intolerant pastor is another. I am not clear which describes Senator Obama's church.

All the pro-Obama pundits are saying that the Reverend Wright fiasco is over. I don't think so. I think that it is less important to Democrats than to independents and to Republicans fed up with George Bush. If Senator Obama is the nominee, I fear how his pastor's and his wife's words will be used against him. Yes, that is the other topic that comes up with the independents that I know, Mrs. Obama's statements. Sad to say, I think what people say to pollsters may not reflect how they will vote. We must wait for the next primary.

The Democratic Party has a process in place with which to select its nominee. The nominee is not the person that reaches the convention with the most votes in hand, the nominee is the person that collects 2024 votes at the convention. Let's wait for the actual vote.

Hip Replacement

Well, I need a new hip. The bone disease, Legg-Perthes,I had as a child has finally won. The ball of the joint has collpased. In the X-ray, the top of the femur looked like a partially deflated football squashed against the socket with no space between the bones. Yes, that hurts. The orthopedist believes that there is also aseptic necrosis. The bone is dying.

Beside the pain, I noticed that my left leg has suddenly become shorter. I no longer have the range of motion I had a year ago. In all, my leg condition is pretty depressing.

The only humor was the fact that my doctor saw the X-ray before he saw me and looked for my wheelchair when he entered the examining room. When I said I did not use a wheelchair, he asked how far I could walk. I explained that I walked wherever I needed to. He said I was tough.

I go back in six weeks to set up a time for the surgery. Of course, there is another small problem. I do not have the money to pay my deductible before the surgery. The only insurance available to me is so expensive that I needed to select a high deductible. Now, I am not sure what I will do.

When my mother was ill, and I asked for assistance, I found out just how ungenerous people are. I was so humiliated by my friends and family that I will never, never ask anyone for help again. I understand that not having money in this society makes you a complete failure, unworthy of help. So be it.

Chris Matthews Supports Rush Limbaugh

I was channel hopping and actually stopped on Chris Matthews' show probably because I was slightly befuddled by the painkiller I am taking to relieve the unrelenting hip pain from a childhood bone disease. What I heard astounded me. Chris Matthews, who takes every opportunity to denigrate Senator Clinton, was cheering on Rush Limbaugh. Why? Because Limbaugh has been claiming that he has persuaded Republics (not Republicans until they use Democratic) to cross party lines and vote for Senator Clinton. Matthews agreed.

Matthews alleged that Senator Clinton's win in Texas could be attributed solely to Republics voting for her. This was after he stated that Republics split evenly between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. If both Democratic candidates recieved equal numbers of Republic votes, then the crossover vote was a wash. The difference between the candidates was in their appeal to the base.

Matthews made a great deal out of the fact that percentage wise, Senator Clinton received more Republic votes than in previous primaries. He attributed this change to Rush Limbaugh. I do not. My belief from speaking with Republic friends (my Sunday School class is full of them) is that they decided to (1) vote in the Democratic primary because they believed McCain had the Republic nomination sewn up, so did not need their vote, and (2) vote for Senator Clinton because they believe that the Democratic nominee will be President and they would rather have Senator Clinton as President. I was surprised at the second decision, but found that my Republic friends see Senator Obama as a unknown, radical element. To them, Senator Clinton is the devil they know and would rather choose.

Interestingly, the Republics that were most eager to vote in their own primary, that I know, voted for Huckabee. There was not much enthusiasm for McCain. Have no doubt, Texas will go Republic in the fall. My vote will not count because of the electoral college.

That Chris Matthews would support the actions of a right wing talk show host to wreck the selection process of the Democratic party speaks to how far right MSNBC has slipped and how much Matthews hates Senator Clinton. I will try to avoid MSNBC just as I avoid Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Obama's Speech

I listened to Senator Obama's entire speech this morning. He is a skillful orator, but he lost me early when he compared Geraldine Ferraro's brief comments to Reverend Wright's many tirades. That comparison so jarred me, that I never could fully commit to believing what he was saying. Just when I was starting to feel that he was sincere, he injected his grandmother. Again, the comments he compared from his grandmother were mild indeed compared to Reverend Wrights' outpouring of hate. That he could equate the two, made me question his judgment.

Far from reassuring me, the speech reinforced an early impression that Senator Obama has issues with older women in positions of authority. In an interview at the beginning of the campaign, I listened as he condescendingly spoke of Hillary's mood swings. I have heard that tone and words used to keep women in their "place" too many times. At that moment, he lost my support.

I admire Senator Obama for not deserting his friend and mentor. Senator Obama delineated the problems of race in this country brilliantly. He did not reassure me as to his own racial views because he did not provide any instances when he confronted Reverend Wright on his extreme views or examples of times when he publicly distanced himself from those views before this campaign. I suspect this is so because such instances never occurred.

On the whole, I think Senator Obama took an unfair hit on his pastor. I do not think he has yet defused that issue. I fear if he is the Democratic Party's candidate that this will hurt his chance to be President.

Senator Obama and Reverend Wright

I have watched the videos of Reverend Wright and do find them to be disturbing and sometimes racist. I sense a deep seated hatred of those that were abusive in the past being transferred to both the still guilty and the innocent because they are white.

The Lord's prayer asks God to forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us. We are to love our enemies and pray for them. I wish Reverend Wright had remembered all that before he preached those sermons. Nevertheless, I do believe he follows Christ just as I do. Just like me, he does it with all his imperfections. We all fall short.

With all that said, I understand Senator Obama's dilemma. I helped start a church almost thirty years ago along with about twenty others. The man who was our pastor and took all the credit for starting the church was a brilliant preacher. His words brought me closer to Christ. He never said anything in the pulpit that offended general sensibilities, but he did challenge us.

Outside the pulpit, he said and wrote things that I found deeply offensive, things I did not believe, and that I did not want to be associated with. Some I called him on, some I was so appalled at that I thought best not to discuss it with him. Only once did I consider leaving the church. I did not because this church was not the pastor. The church was and is people who I love and trust, not because they are so perfect, but because they are not. They struggle to find their way in this world and to do it as Christ would have us act.

I did not leave the church because I also knew the man my pastor was. He was kind and generous, truly a person who would not deliberately hurt another. He loved God and loved his people. That his words were sometimes not as generous as his soul made me angry and sad. Angry because his words spoke of prejudice, sad because he could not see that.

So, I understand how Senator Obama could belong to a church where he did not believe as the pastor did. I think he is taking an unfair hit on this. Remember, I support Senator Clinton. I do find it a little disingenuous that he claims he did not know about his pastor's views. However, I can remember being shocked to learn some of my pastor's comments.

Senator Obama needs to refute directly all of his pastor's outrageous statements. He needs to distance himself from the words, but not the man. Politically, I don't know if he can do that. As a Christian, I know he can. In the end, to be President, he may have to dump his friend. How sad.

For a New York Times article on Senator Obama's comments on Reverend Wright click on the title.

MSNBC: Males Superior No Broad Capable

I have decided to stop watch MSNBC and NBC news because of their news coverage of the Clinton-Obama campaign. The final straw came when Chris Matthews stated that the red phone ad was racist, aimed at white moms with sleeping children who would fear a black man. Never in my wildest imagination when I saw that ad did I ever think of that. I only thought of foreign policy and Barack Obama 's inexperience. I have come to believe that the media is driving the search for racism everywhere and anywhere. Don't get me wrong, I live in Texas, and there is plenty of racism left here, but that is no excuse for such wild flights of fancy as take place on MSNBC.

The main talking point is that Senator Clinton will never catch Senator Obama in pledged delegate votes, so she cannot win the nomination. What they usually leave out is the fact that Senator Obama cannot win enough pledged delegate votes to win the nomination either. Both nominees will need the so-called super delegates. By the way, the Democratic Party is not a branch of government, the Party can decide to select its candidate in any manner it chooses. The commentators need to cool the rhetoric about the process being undemocratic. As long as the party rules are followed the process is fair.

Finally, I have grown weary of how women are treated by NBC. The only women newsreaders are right leaning, uninformed blondes. One dismissed the issue of experience between Obama and Clinton as what does it matter they are the same. We may argue about exactly how much experience each has, but Senator Clinton had been in the Senate longer and met with more international leaders. There is a difference. How much it matters can be argued, but she does have more experience, if for no other reason than she has lived longer. I dare NBC to acknowledge that. Intelligent women are not allowed to speak unless they agree with the male commentator. Chris Matthews has steamrolled his women guests for years. I won't even go into what I think of Keith Olberman and his treatment of Senator Clinton.

I have stopped watching NBC news because if MSNBC can be so unbalanced, the the values of NBC news are suspect. In addition,I have always thought there was something lacking in a news channel that ceases to do the news on weekends and instead relies on docufillers. I firmly believe that NBC's motto is Males Superior No Broad Capable. By the way, B doesn't really stand for broad, it stands for b****( rhymes with itch). Eventually, someone at NBC will look at demographics and realize they are driving women viewers away. I hope it happens soon.

Photo by chetlyzarko

What Happened? I'm a Clinton Delegate

Never deny that God has a sense of humor. I have been less than a happy camper about this whole political process. I have been enraged by the way Senator Clinton has been treated because she is a woman. I thought some of Barack Obama's remarks about her had a tinge of sexism. I firmly believe that her proposal for health insurance is better than Obama's. He is wrong to let healthy people opt out, so that only the sick carry the burden of health insurance. With all that and after reading the story of Deborah and Barak in the Old Testament, I decided to vote for Senator Clinton which I did last week during early voting.

Yesterday for no really good reason, I decided to go to the caucus. While my mother was alive and I was her caregiver, I never felt it worthwhile to leave her alone or to get someone to stay with her while I went to a caucus. I received a canned phone call from Senator Clinton that advised going to the precinct by 6:30pm. Off I went. I did make one concession to my failing hip: I took mother's walker with a seat. I was very glad that I did. When I reached the polling place which was an old school cafeteria, I took a seat in the rear. Soon a poll worker hustled us all out into a hallway. Thanks to the walker, I could sit down. Without it, I could not have stayed. Someone should pay attention to the needs of the handicapped. From my vantage, the disabled are not welcome in this part of the Texas political process. There were no accomodations for the elderly or handicapped.

We waited. At 7:15 pm, an election worker came to the door for volunteers to help register voters as they made their selection. More waiting, except now I was on my feet. Just when I thought I had reached my limit (my hip is very painful), we were let in. I was in the front because I had arrived so early, so I did not wait long to enter my vote. I retreated to the rear of the room and a seat on my walker. I looked at the two sets of lines: one set for Obama, one for Clinton. Clinton's lines had an end; Obama's lines stretched out the door. ( There was a short line for people who did not want either Clinton or Obama or had problems with their voting record.)

Suddenly, a large number of Clinton supporters joined the lines. I was elated until I learned that there were several hundred people waiting outside to vote. These Clinton supporters were the only ones culled from that group. A young couple joined me and found some chairs. For the first time in my life, I had the feeling I was being looked after. Oh, well, they were very nice and very young, but they, too, supported Clinton. The voting went on and on. All the Clinton supporters had voted, so their lines were converted to Obama's. Some Obama supporters were suspicious of the Clinton lines and refused to go to the new lines. They need not have worried; you have to personally write in your candidate's name. Eventually, the additional lines made a difference and the voting was complete.

More waiting. And waiting. The votes had to be counted. Oh, there was a skirmish over who would chair, but the Obama people won. Their chair did seem pretty even-handed. The secretary elected by the caucus was a Clinton supporter. The votes were counted and recounted. There were arguments over how the delegates should be divided and more arguments, but all very civil. I wanted to stay to find out the results so I waited, then waited some more. A little after nine, there was a decision. The delegates would be divided: 76% for Obama, 24% for Clinton. There were a total of 611 votes cast, a record for that precinct.

People were asked to come forward if they wished to be a delegate. We were divided by candidate. There was a mob of people for Obama, but fewer for Clinton. Clinton supporters came up one short. The leaders asked if someone there could attend and gave the date and a vague location. I raised my hand expecting others to be raised, too. I did not see any, and the young couple next to me leapt to their feet, shouting that here was the needed delegate. They both pointed to me. The next thing that I knew I was filling in my name and information. I was a Hillary Clinton delegate.

The photos are by mlovitt and not my precinct.

Gender Bias

I have watched, listened to and read the various pundits expounding on why Senator Hillary Clinton is treated with less respect than Senator Barack Obama because she is a Clinton, not because she is a woman. Or because she was the front runner, so deserved less consideration. All I can say is stuff it. I have been there, done that.

I could give years of discrimination experience from the time I entered college until today. I have been told that a man who did not meet the qualifications of the job for which I met every qualification had been hired because he needed the job and I would not fit in with the small faculty (all male). Of course, this was told mein confidence. I have been by my host that the only reason I was interviewed was because they needed to have a woman interviewed, but I understood: a woman would never make it at the plant (big oil company). The list goes on. I quit science when I could no longer stand the hypocrisy. I had one professor tell me I was the most brilliant student that he had ever taught thermodynamics, but he would only write a letter of recommendation for me if I promised that I would never seek a position in his laboratory. He could not stand the thought of a woman in his lab. I promised because I did not want to have anything to do with the man. He did write a very good recommendation.

McCain lost any chance of my support when he laughed at the "bitch" remark. I bet he never thought of his lobbyist friend as a bitch. Barack Obama turned my stomach when he spoke of Hillary's moods. Too often, he is condescending. He has two daughters. How does he want them to be treated when they are adults?

The media annointed Obama and dissed Senator Clinton. The television pundits are the worst about gender bias. They use terms to refer to Senator Clinton that they would not use to refer to a man that did exactly the same thing. Senator Clinton is "playing the victim", while a man is "on the defensive", etc. MSNBC is perhaps the epitome of this male chauvinism. MSNBC should stand for "males superior no bitches capable."

A strong, African American male is perceived as less a threat to the status quo than a strong woman because African Americans are a small percentage of the American population while women are more than half the population. We are a nation that devalues women and their contributions. Today, the discrimination is more subtle, but just as real. Young women just don't realize it, so they will vote for Obama.

I plan to vote for Senator Clinton.

Photo by marcn

Changing Faiths

The New York Times had an article today on people changing faiths. Click on the title to go to that article. The article's focus seemed to be on people leaving their faith and the increase of people that are unattached to a faith group.

This made me think about my pilgrimage through faith. I was baptized at eleven in a very traditional Baptist church. By the time I reached my teens, I no longer felt that I belonged. I asked questions that did not get answered or I was told were not appropriate. All the questions were about theology. I planned to be a scientist. I could not reconcile my faith and science. With no answers from my faith, I withdrew. I was no longer sure of the veracity of Christianity. I did not lose my belief in God, but he settled comfortably into the guise of the clockmaker.

I had a Ph.D. in Chemistry at twenty-five. My supervising professor had been a Presbyterian who tried in vain to get me not to do research on Sundays. I accepted a postdoctoral fellowship under a Jewish professor. I covered his classes on Jewish holy days. We never discussed faith, but I knew that except for his mother and father, all his family perished in the Holocaust. He did ask me to hold office hours for some of his Arab students who had told him they were uncomfortable with him and requested my help. I did hold office hours for him that whole semester and always had students requesting help.

Eventually, I went to work for the State of Texas in air pollution control. My paternal grandmother died after a battle with cancer. I began to search for a source of faith. I examined Buddhism, Hinduism and some of the Chinese faiths. I touched on Wiccan, then picked up a book by C.S. Lewis: The Screwtape Letters. For the first time, I was intellectually engaged with Christianity. I went on to read more books and eventually joined a liberal Southern Baptist church. I made a new commitment to Christ that continues to this day. While I still belong to a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, I do not consider myself a Southern Baptist. I am Baptist, part of the priesthood of the believer.

If I had been polled in those years between my teens and my return to Christ, I would have been classified as agnostic or perhaps unbelieving. I doubt that I would have considered myself a Deist, just undecided. I suspect that as many of the people in this study age, they will find their faith anew.

Embryonic Stem Cells and My Faith

My mother had Parkinson's Disease (PD) for sixteen years. She died from PD in 2005, but she had slipped away from me in small increments for years. Her PD made me interested in the possibilities of stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research. As a Christian, I was also concerned about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. After studying both the science and the ethical issues, I came to firmly support embryonic stem cell research.

First, I dealt with the science. Was the promise of embryonic stem cells real? Yes. Embryonic stem cells can become any cell in the body. If scientists could learn the secrets of embryonic stem cells, then any cell in the body could be replaced. If embryonic stem cells could be coaxed to become dopamine producing neurons, then Parkinson's disease could be treated. The potential was there. Only time and new research would prove the efficacy. Embryonic stem cell research also provided a way to gain insight into the cause of disease. How much better to prevent the disease from ever happening than to have to cure it.

Next, I dealt with the ethics of stem cell research. To date, the best way to get embryonic stem cells was to harvest them from a less than fourteen day old fertilized egg. This procedure destroyed the fertilized egg, so the question I had to face was whether I believed that a fertilized egg was a human being or, most importantly for me, had a soul. If the fertilized egg were a human being or had a soul, then, no matter the benefits, I could not support stem cell research.

I looked both to my faith and science for the answer. Psalm 39 says "He knit me together in my mother's womb." I understand that to mean that only in the womb does a fertilized egg become a human being and receive a soul. That was scant justification. The Bible also states that we are created in God's image. Scholars have interpreted this to mean that the image of God is our mind. There is no mind present in a fourteen day old embryo, no central nervous system, no brain. This helped, but did not decide the issue for me.

Science ultimately provided the key for me. We now know that fifty percent of all eggs fertilized naturally during a woman's lifetime do not implant. So, if a fertilized egg had a soul, God was letting half of all souls be wasted. I simply do not believe the God I know would act so capriciously. For me, the issue was decided. I could support embryonic stem cell research wholeheartedly.

I do not know when an embryo receives a soul. I know that it does not happen before it implants in the womb.

"Study Finds Cancer Diagnostics Linked to Insurance"

A study (above title is link to NYTimes article) has shown that people without insurance or with only Medicaid are diagnosed with cancer later than people with good health insurance. This results in more cancer deaths in those covered by Medicaid. As I have noted before here, I believe this is the system desired by business and the Republican controlled government. What better way to remove people who are not productive than to let them die because of poor medical care. This also reduces the cost of care for these people because they do not live long enough to use as much care as they would if diagnosed early. All in all, a very good way to winnow the population.