Monthly Archives: August 2005

Reporting Tragedies, Raising Awareness, and Helping People

I got an interesting email from the American Progress Action Fund regarding news reports of tragic events, like the devastation wrought by Katrina.

"Like many of you, for the past 48 hours we have been glued to our computers and televisions, watching this tragedy unfold. We applaud the efforts of our news media, in particular ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC, to cover this story. On these networks, together as a nation, we have witnessed images of rooftop rescues and other amazing acts of heroism – along with moments of great personal tragedy. Hurricane Katrina is a truly important story and by doing a very good job of covering it, our TV news programs are providing Americans and the entire world the information necessary to help make a difference."

"Yet, as we watch in horror, we can't help but think of another tragedy a bit farther away – the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan stemming from the ongoing genocide there. Unfortunately, our TV networks are not doing such a good job informing Americans that 7,000 people are dying every month as a result of the genocide, according to the World Health Organization. Their stories of rescue, of heroism, of personal tragedy, and of survival are not being told."

"And so, when the floodwaters have receded in our homeland, and our fellow Americans begin the process of rebuilding their lives and their communities, we hope that the networks will reflect on the important role they play in keeping us informed of tragedies near and far and will continue to cover real news – important news. We hope that the networks will come to agree: Genocide IS News."

Continue reading

CBS Smites Joan

One of the few shows I turn the TV on to watch is Joan of Arcadia (JoA). Quietly on 5-18-05, CBS cancelled the show. I just found this out from my wife who also watches it.

We were wondering what happened when there were no commercials about the show. We didn't imagine that they canceled it. We are extremely disappointed.

I just hope CBS or some other network picks it up sometime soon. Even people that aren't religious watched it. It's a good show amongst so many that aren't even close (CBS is keeping "Yes, dear". Blah.).

If you'd like to sign a petition to save the JoA, go here or here.

Voting Restrictions Racist?

I fail to see how a law requiring photo ID at polls is discriminatory against anyone, but that’s just what the NAACP is claiming.

"The NAACP accuses the U.S. Justice Department of weakening one of the nation’s most important voting laws. On Friday, the Justice Department approved a Georgia law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. Supporters say the new law will prevent fraud at the polls. But opponents say it will keep thousands of voters away — especially poor and elderly people who don’t have drivers’ licenses and can’t afford to pay for a state-issued ID card. They say the new Georgia law essentially requires many black people to pay a fee before voting."

….

"Under the new Georgia law, the list of acceptable photo IDs for voters is limited to the following: a Georgia driver’s license, U.S. passport, U.S. or state agency employee ID, military ID, tribal ID or an ID card issued by a legally empowered branch of Georgia, any other state or the U.S. government."

How much could it possibly cost to get a non-license photo ID in Georgia?! In PA, it’s about $10. For what poor soul is that too much to bear? If the cost really would be a deterrent for many, lobby for some kind of subsidy instead of trying to get the whole idea scrapped. Don’t they realize how many dead people and other inelligible parties vote each year?

Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

Update: Gclectic left an intriguing comment in which he called my bluff and presented an interesting idea. As he points out, I haven’t a clue how many fraudulant votes are registered at elections. I don’t think anyone would really deny it’s a problem, but he’s right that I ought to have provided evidence. I was being flippant and he called me on it. That’s fair.

He also suggested some alternatives to the photo ID idea. I really like one of them – indellible ink. Yup, the same ink used in Iraq’s elections. I think that’d be a really cool – and fair – way to curb voter fraud. I’d be very interested to see how many of my fellow citizens were – or weren’t – walking around with inky fingers on election day. Come to think of it, there might even be a fringe benefit to the practice – increased voter turnout.

Something similar happens in the Catholic Church. Every year on Ash Wednesday, churches are packed. More people attend that mass – one that isn’t even a holy day of obligation – than any other mass throughout the year. Why? Well, the full answer is complicated, but at least some of them likely attend because they get something to show for it. They get ashes put on their foreheads. First of all, people, particularly Americans, like to feel like they get something to show for their efforts. Secondly, for the rest of the day they can advertise what good Catholics they (allegedly) are, simply by being seen in public.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with US elections? Well, perhaps if voters got to walk around with ink on their fingers – a something tangible they could show off – they’d be more inclined to get off their lazy butts and vote. I’m sure I don’t have to provide statistical proof that voter turnout is often no higher than 60% of those who are eligible. So, with indellible ink we could fight voter fraud and possibly increase voter turnout in the process. Cool. 🙂

Abstaining From Meat on Fridays

I was recently corrected in my mistaken belief that Vatican II softened the requirement to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. I now know the matter was left to episcopal conferences to decide proper weekly penance. In the United States, the norm has not changed, however we are permitted to substitute acts of charity or piety or other appropriate penitential acts. Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that fewer American Catholics perform Friday penance than obey the rule forbidding artificial contraception, and look at the rest of the world (I’m guilty of the former, BTW.). Specifically, I’m wondering if any of my readers might know what other episcopal conferences around the world require of their flocks? How many still absolutely require abstinence from meat of Fridays? Of those, how faithful and obedient are the people?

A Litmus Test By Any Other Name…

Apparently, conservatives don't own dictionaries. They seem utterly oblivious to the definition of "litmus test" as well as "irony" and "hypocrisy". I've received a number of alarmist emails from various conservative groups with in this vein:

"Write to your Senators and let them know you don't support any litmus test demands!"

How are demands for so-called strict constructionists who will overturn Roe v. Wade not litmus tests?! Everyone knows that if Bush hadn't nominated a "solid conservative", the loyal base that got him elected twice would have eaten him alive. That wasn't a suggestion. That was demand – a political debt to be paid.

These kinds of hypocritical political tactics will only hurt the pro-life cause. I'd like to see abortion on demand ended as much as the next pro-lifer, but this is not a productive way to go about it. As long as this battle remains Us versus Them, hearts will not be changed and lives won't be saved. Why should we be forced to accept any Supreme Court nominee – or political candiate for that matter – based solely on his position on abortion rulings? Worse yet, in this case, we don't even know for certain what his position is!

Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. There are other ways to reduce abortions than loading the courts with pro-lifers. Also, Supreme Court appointments are for life and there a lot of ways a justice could screw up constitutional law. I'd like to know how a nominee feels about a lot of issues aside from abortion before hounding my senators to accept his appointment. Besides, demanding pro-life strict constructionists is just as much as litmus test as demanding pro-choice "living document" nominees. It makes pro-lifers just as hypocritical as the pro-choicers they demonize, if not worse, and it undermines the pro-life cause.

In the name of the modern Holy Innocents, I beg you to stop.