TexasMama

Can This Be Our Country?

Can this truly be happening in this, our rich and formidable country?  Can we really be leaving thousands upon thousands of people standing in hot sun, surrounded by feces, urine, and dead bodies, without water or food?  Are there really mothers handing 2 month old babies to total strangers lucky enough to make it onto a bus in hope that at least the baby might survive?  Can this be happening? Here.

And now the refugees poor into our city, to live in yet another sports arena.  And thousands of people want to help.  But no one can tell us how.  The Astrodome is turning away everyone except those coming on the buses from the super-dome.  They are turning them away with no means to get anywhere else.  I would drive them.  But friends have already been turned away from the gates of the dome trying to make the same offer.  We are told to call the local red cross, but they are overwhelmed with offers of help and are already too busy running the existing aid programs.

Texas plans to house roughly 50,000 refugees from New Orleans for the next few months.  These people have nothing, and most have lost family members, some even their whole family.  They have no way to get information on their families, no way to find one another.  Like so many others, I have to wonder why more plans weren't in place.  Don't misunderstand, I don't really blame the people out there now trying to help.  They are doing the best they can, under the circumstances.  But it seems the circumstances are so much worse than they might have been.

New Orleans has know for years that a hurricane could do exactly this.  Clearly a disaster of this magnitude is more than the local or even state government could possible handle on their own.  The Federal government is there now, trying to help, trying to manage the situation, trying to figure out what to do.  Why don't the already know what to do?  Why aren't they simply executing a pre-arranged plan.

And the Texas government has generously offered to house 50,00 people.  A lovely offer and one that is undoubtedly greatly appreciated.  But the need for long term housing for all those people cannot possible be a surprise to anyone.  Where did Texas really think all these people would go in the event that the worst did happen?  It's a fair assumption Texas would need to take in many of them, so why was there no plan in place for that.  It's quite fortunate the astrodome was never torn down as many people wanted.  but that was fortune, not planning.  Why is there not already a contact center set up and waiting for the arriving refugees to help them find their loved ones?

SO many questions about the most heartbreaking situation I have even seen in this country.  ALl I know is I am sad, and short of monetary  donations, which I have already made, there seems to be nothing I can do.  Even though nearly 25 thousand refugees with absolutely nothing, will be living down the road from me.  I'll find a way to help if it's possible, but it should have been easy for me to be helping already.

Supremely Scary Court

Well, It now seems inevitable that John Roberts will be out next supreme court justice.  I admit I've tuned out much of the coverage.  I'm in denial.  But what I've heard focuses primarily on the threat to Roe v. Wade, and with Roberts reassuring everyone that he will respect precedence on the matter, much of the left seems somewhat placated.

There's not a whole lot of information out there on the guy's stand on particular issues,  He advocates a "strict" reading of the constitution - always a red flag to me, the thing was specifically written to be interpretable - and is supposed to be very intelligent with an incredible memory, except about what organizations to which he may or may not have paid dues.  But whatever.  He's young-ish and has adopted children, all the reporters are quick to point out.  He may or may not have helped decided the 2000 election and he may or may not be a member of a frighteningly conservative legal organization.  And wow, that group deserves a post all of it's own but I can't imagine I'll ever get there.

Some members of the left are speculating that since he doesn't have a long history to prove his conservatism, he might just drift left like so many other republican appointments have.  After all there are only two democrats on the court now, and "moderate" Sandra Day O'Connor was not among them.  But I don't see it that way.  I think he could well be among the most conservative candidates available.  I believe him when he says he will respect precedent on Roe, because that is exactly what an ultra-conservative judge would do.  I don't actually see a grave danger to Roe at this point, though I think if the case came up the right way he would not hesitate to weaken Roe in any way possible.  That's the problem with Roe, it doesn't need to be overturned, for abortion to be criminalized, new decisions about the definition of life could make Roe a moot point .  But that's not my point, as I said I don't see a grave danger too it right now.

The environment, civil liberties, indigenous people's rights, equal rights for women and minorities, services for the poor and sick, individual rights in the face of monster corporations, campaign finance laws, the rights of gays and lesbians, free media, immigration rights, and so much more, THOSE are the things I worry about with Roberts as a judge.  The constitution does not specifically state that I have  a right to sue evil corporate mogul who knowingly left a dangerous product on the market so he could make an extra buck, so I won't be surprised if Roberts one day votes that I do not have that right.  The constitution does not specifically protect my right to seek help in conceiving a child, so what's to stop him from saying I can't have help.  And what about stem cell research?  Sigh.  The list goes on and on and on.  But everyone is talking about Roe.

I have  to give Bush credit.  He made what appears to be a very wise choice.  I think he sacrificed his desire to overturn Roe because he knew if he did he could deflect most of the opposition.    He also picked someone that, on the surface at least, is about as decent a person and a staunch conservative can be.  I personally disagree with nearly everything the man says, but he seems like a nice man, good husband, good father, etc.  If he weren't going to have so much control over my life, I'd probably like him as well as I can like someone on the uber-right.

As a final note, for all the right wing folks out there wondering why so many of your previous appointees have gone so much to the left, I'll tell you why.  It's because it right.  As in correct.  And your Republican presidents have done a good job choosing good people.  Those people, when confronted with the cases, have simply come to the right conclusion some of the time.  The didn't drift anywhere.  Though perhaps the country drifted right after their appointments.  And that is the one thing that gives me some hope about Roberts.  The court seems to have a certain power to make people see more clearly.  On a personal level,  Roberts seems like an OK guy, so maybe it will get him too.  But given that the rightest of the right support his nomination, I'm not holding out much hope for that.  So I'm very, very afraid of what will happen now.

What will happen now?

Sandra Day O'Connor has retired.  She may not have consistantly voted with the more liberal group, but at least she sometimes did.  If old GW has his way there will be a new Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia on the bench.  If that happens, God help us all.

Brainwashing of America

A few days ago, I tied to find something interesting on the radio.  As I flipped, I heard a snippet of Rush Limbaugh, not my usual fair, but I couldn't resist listening for a second or two.  He was ranting about how irrational all the liberals are and at one point asked if liberals are so interested in reducing the US dependency on foreign oil, why don't they support nuclear energy? Huh???

OK Rush, how about because Nuclear energy is used to generate ELECTRICITY and oil is primarily used to run cars, planes, and other transportation vehicles?  Or did you miss your class on the combustible engine and think we were driving nuclear powered cars around these days?  Dude, it's the use of that other fossil fuel, COAL, (remember that one?) on which more nuclear power would arguable have an impact.  You could build a nuclear plant for every man woman and child in America and we'd still need just about the same amount of oil.

So I'm expecting some caller to correct him because, well, duh!  But no.  They all said, yeah!  Why not nuclear power?   Yeah!  It's not that I think everyone needs to know what source of power does what (though if you think a minute these are pretty obvious things) it was the blind acceptance of all the listeners that bothered me.  If Rush said it, it must be right and true.

sigh

And then there's the whole funding for PBS and NPR thing...  Seriously, could the House get any scarier?  Maybe I'll get to that later.

Mary Jane

OK, I know I said not to get me started but come on.  Can anyone out there tell my why it is more objectionable to have my doctor prescribe for me Medical Marijuana than cocaine.  Anyone?  I cannot even fathom an explanation for that that could begin to make sense.  Why is cocaine OK but not pot?  Why?  That's just dumb.

In defense of the supreme court, however, I have to say based strictly on the current law, their interpretation of federal law vs state law is probably correct.  I wish they'd been more adamant about that in the decision though.  They could have come right out and said, though the law is stupid, we are bound by it.  They hinted at it, but they could have done a lot more. 

The law, on the other hand... I suppose I can see some arguments against marijuana, but surely all the same would apply to cocaine, barbiturates, methamphetamine, etc.   Why is MJ treated so differently.  How in the world can any rational person claim MJ is more dangerous than any of those?

Please, someone, explain it to me.

The News Sucks

I'm taking time out from wallowing in misery to complain a little about today's news.  Pretty sure this is gonna be rambly.  As I listened to the BBC news, I got more and more depressed.  Famine, global warming, mass rape and murder of children in Mexico.  Not one item was happy.  And don't even get me started on the Supreme Court's  Medical Marijuana case... 

Then on to the local news.   Two items particularly caught my attention:  the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage (and the news giver's grim assurance that it would almost certainly pass), and one lame-assed political aide's take on the bill in Kansas or some such state, attempting to limit the number of embryos created during an IVF cycle. 

---Can I just take a moment here to echo Brooklyn Girl's plea of could we at least get the language right, folks?  I'm mean come on, you're entitled to you own stupid, uninformed, ass-backwards opinion, but you gotta at least use the right words. OK???---

Back to the point.  Well, I'm not 100% sure there is going to be one, but back to the original story, at least.  Months ago, I volunteered to work on the opposition to the same-sex amendment.  A good friend roped me in, and in the process I met many other wonderful people.  My friend's story and one of the men's story happen to have a lot of relevance here on both topics.  And since both are close to my heart, I couldn't resist the chance to blog about them together.

First my friend, we'll call her R.  6 years ago R and her partner decided they wanted a child.  The decided her partner, M,  would be the one to get pregnant because R had always had terrible irregular periods and thought it might be more difficult for her.  After several miscarriages they discovered that M had an abnormally small uterus and would likely never be able to carry a child to term.  So after much grieving they decided to try getting R pregnant. 

First they tried clomid, then injectibles.  She never had more than 2 follicles and nothing took.  Finally they moved on to IVF using M as the egg provider and R as the gestational carrier (their words).    They both actually stimmed, but R produced 3 eggs to M's 19.  They asked not to be told whose eggs the embryos resulted from.  2 were transferred and about 7.5 months later they had beautiful boy/girl twins.  And despite some idiot politician's fears to the contrary, they had no embryos left to "abandon" though they had initially "created" about 11.

Hmm.. can I find a point here?  Oh yes!  It was quite a legal quagmire to determine the guardianship of the children, one that would have been greatly simplified if same sex marriage were allowed.  And if they'd been forced to limit the number of embryos "created," their children probably would not exist. 

The other story is similar except that the uterus and egg problems came about because both parents are men.  They chose to to use a gestational surrogate and an unrelated egg donor.  They both gave sperm samples and also asked not to be told whose sperm had contributed to the successful  embryos.  They also conceived twins but one died in the second trimester due to severe defects.  Oddly, their little boy is quite a blend of both of them and they seem not to have any idea whose sperm won the day.   And they don't care.

See now, stories like that warm my heart.  They make me smile.  But apparently they send other people scurrying to their lawmakers to demand future such atrocities be prevented.  What's wrong with our world?

*Sigh*   OK back to wallowing now.

Oh, and please excuse the lack of links to the stories I referenced.  I'm just way to tired to mess with HTML right now.

In Memorium

Texas has lost one of it's few good guys out in Austin.  Representative Joe Moreno was killed last night in a car accident.  He was serving his fourth term and was part of a strong effort to curb the outrageous pollution problem in this state. He is from a strongly democratic district so there is little doubt his successor will also be a Democrat, but, in accordance with state law, his seat will reamain vacant for the remainder of this legislative term. 

My condolences to his family and friends.  I did not know him, but I am deeply saddened by his passing.  I thank him for his dedication to public service.  He really was one of the good guys. 

Ratzinger, Huh?

*sigh*  So much for progress.  The most conservative of the candidates elected in one of the quickest conclaves in 100 years.  I think the US is not the only country going the wrong direction.

DeLay the deluded.

First I want to know how in the heck this man was elected majority leader.  Even all the Republicans I know think the guy is scum.  In my mind, it makes them all look equally guilty to elect the creep.  I mean, it is one thing for the people of Texas to elect the guy.  His district is so red you could run a republican from strait jail and he would still win against any Democrat in the world.  These people would rather DIE than elect a Democrat. Period. But for the rest of the Republicans to do the same?  One would expect a person elected to the US Congress to have at least minimal intelligence and education (despite abundant evidence to the contrary) and to be able to see the truly rotten apart for the just insanely conservative.  Hey they're a bunch of conservatives, so I expect someone scarily conservative to get the job.  Fine.  But DeLay? He's not conservative, he's just nasty.

His excuses are downright comical.  Oh I didn't know that was going on.  The Democrats are trying to make me look bad.  It was all done by someone else, no one told ME.  Ugh.  I don't really have a point here, I just think the guy is disgusting.  It makes me ill.

But you know the worst part?  No one cares.  When his top two aides were arrested, not a single mainstream media outlet in Houston reported on it.  Pacifica Radio, with its listernership of 10, was the only station to cover the story.  The top two aides of one of the most powerful men in Texas, and even in the country, were hauled off to jail and it didn't even merit a mention in evening news in the man's own district.  Not one Word.  Martha Stewart, on the other hand, got whole specials dedicated to interviews with her friends, accountants, casual acquaintances who once got within 10 feet of her. 

Actually, it's probably not that no one cares, it's that no one is allowed to make a negative comment about DeLay.  Not in Texas.  Not if they want to keep their job.  Plus, didn't you know it's un-American to criticize a Republican?  You might just get labeled a terrorist if you do it too loud.

See, I told you Mercury was BAD.

Take 2... (see the next post)

You have to love this.  I love that it takes a new study to make people think that maybe, just maybe, dumping all that mercury into our air, rivers, and oceans might not be the healthiest idea. Maybe.  And I am so pleased that living in Texas, I have the distinction of being a resident of the worst polluting state in the nation.  Hmmm... sounds a lot like our record on the death penalty too.  But I digress.  Why, you might ask, is Texas so bad.  Well, that can nearly be answered in two words, George Bush.  But to be fair, there have been many others just as bad.

Texas had a huge portion of the mercury producing energy plants in the nation.  But that alone does not explain Texas's terrible pollution record.  No, the real problem is that we have never had a Governor or Legislature willing to cross any big business, the energy industry being among the biggest.  The Lame-ass Texas Constitution does have something to do with this, but that is a whole other post.  Texas actually passed some fairly tough pollution standards not too long ago.  But when the industry complained that they would cost to much to meet, the government simply grandfathered all the existing plants, making them essentially exempt from the rules.  Oh I forgot, they could follow them voluntarily. Ummm... right.

But what pisses me off the most about the whole mercury thing is that when a new species of fish is found to contain dangerously high levels of mercury, pregnant women and young children are simply told not to eat it.  (Unless, of course, growers of that particular type of fish have a big enough lobby and enough money.  Then hey, no one has ever proved a little mercury hurts anyone, right.  And we KNOW banning that fish will hurt our bottom line.  Come on, what's more important here?)  The story is always, Alert, Alert. New Fish Added to the Banned List!  Never, Wow, Look! Our Rivers are Really Fucking Polluted and Somebody Should Do Something About It.  That should be the story. That should make a stir.  And sure, pregnant women shouldn't eat the fish, but they really shouldn't have a need not to.

We are all guilty though.  How many times have you silently scolded a pregnant woman for ordering a tuna sandwich.  And how many times have you written a letter to your Congressperson demanding better laws and stiffer penalties?  Right, me too.  It's not like I actually expect my Republican controlled congress (thanks in large part to the outrageously unconstitutional gerrymandering that took place last session) to give a shit.  But I really should make my voice heard, right?

OK, more on the relationship of all this to vaccines, tomorrow.  No energy to re-type it now.  Plus, I really need to take advantage of the fact that my child will likely sleep another good 4 hours ;) and get some sleep myself.