Children

Reading over my last post, I realized that I sounded a little overzealous. Yes, I believe that over-population is something the world needs to be concerned with. And although I have chosen not to have children myself, I can still understand something of the need to have them: to watch a part of myself grow and become their own person; to know that part of myself will live on; to be able to love a person simply because they are a part of myself, an extension of my life, an expression of the love I feel for my husband. The fact remains, though, that as part of the educated world I believe this is a responsibility as much as a right. To have a child simply for the sake of having one is to do a disservice not only to the child, but also to the world that that child must live in. I come from a fairly large family by today's standards, and I love each and every one of my nieces and nephews, to say nothing of my siblings and my stepson; perhaps I love them more precisely because I know I won't have children. Where is that line between love and social consciousness? When does one have to begin thinking of the world as it will be in the future and not just the world as I wish it to be? Comments, anyone?

What the world needs now is...

...more babies. I probably should have caught this a while ago, but Benedict made his announcement in the middle of the Katrina coverage, so my mind was on other things. The pope wants people to have more babies. I'm not sure why I'm surprised - I mean, the Bible is pretty explicit about this kind of mandate with the whole "go forth, be fruitful and multiply" thing. But today the world is quickly approaching overpopulation in some places. If a country actually manages to have a negative population effect on the overall surplus, then I think they should get some extra tax breaks, or maybe something really useful like free coffee. The point is, the world's population is still growing at an alarming rate. The poorer countries are the most over-populated because of a lack of medical knowledge and birth control. So let a few countries get a little behind on the baby-making process; the rest of the world will need the extra space. Or better yet, people could adopt the children that are at thousands of orphanages around the world - those children need love and support too. In fact, most of Europe has gotten it's population under control (their kids are taught things a little more useful than "just don't do it"). Even Zimbabwe has managed to cut it's birth rate almost in half in the past 20 years; how was one of the poorest countries in the world able to do this?

"The major reason for this drop is seen as a result of measures taken soon after independence to ensure all children, including all girls, had access to a full education coupled with the development of a wide and effective primary health care network."

Hmm...so with education and health care, women can learn to protect themselves and keep their family healthy? What a novel idea! So the point is, I think it's a little irresponsible of the Pope to say that just because the more developed countries are beginning to see a lower birth rate than they have to play catch up with the rest of the world. These countries are getting it right without any help, and the Pope is trying to throw them back in the dark ages. Or is he maybe trying to just counterbalance the Muslim population?

Russian Periodicals

It's no surprise when newspapers and journals up their subscription rates, since so many people can get online and read the news for free these days. As the number of people who are actually willing to pay for their news drops, people have to pay more; it's a simple thing to understand. One of our (few) English-language Russian periodicals is going through the same crunch - and has doubled its rate for next year. So that means that someone has to decide if it's worth all of that extra money. I don't know the first thing about reading/speaking/understanding the Russian language , and really don't have to in order to figure this one out. But looking for information on Russia has inevitably led me to a bunch of things written in Russian. Looking at the Cyrillic alphabet is totally different than looking at something in a foreign language written with an Arabic alphabet. If I look at, say,a French newspaper, I immediatly know that I don't understand it and move on. My eyes can make out the letters, but they are are too many of them put together with too many little accent marks all over the place. My brain says "don't even bother" and moves on. If I look at something written in Russian, however, my brain is stunned for a second. The letters look somewhat familiar, and surely if I squint at it enough, they'll rearrange themselves so that I know if I'm looking at something I don't understand or something that I can make some sense of. After a half of a second my brain sends the message "no, you still don't know what this is" and moves on. But for that half second I'm convinced I'll figure it out. It's kind of like reading something by looking at it in a mirror - it takes your brain a minute to understand that everything is reversed. Only with all these Russian papers, nothing ever clears up. Now, after two hours of this, when I switch back to English it still takes my brain a half second to decide If I can understand something or not. I think it is definately time for lunch.

Very Sad Story...

about a whale.

End of a Weekend

It's been a quiet weekend around here. StepSon had bronchitis, but modern medicine took care of that quickly. I had more than 7 hours of classes this weekend (all deeply mired in the ever-important Library Theory that could put anyone to sleep), but have happily resusitated myself with a few rum-spiked coffee drinks. And the Husband is happy because the new season of King of the Hill starts tonight. All is good with the world.

That Brilliant Church

I wanted to vent a little over Bush's once again inept attempt to excuse his behavior (and, I dare say, his very existence), but instead, I'll leave this link and the topic for later consideration, as I have other disturbing news to think about. I read this a couple of weeks ago and thought "surely not," but apparently it's true. The Catholic Church, apparently having either too much or not enough time on its hands, has decided that the simplest way to deal with the sex scandel is simply to keep any homosexual man from becoming a priest. The NYTimes reported today that each of the over 200 seminaries in the US will be reviewed. Two of the questions that seem particularly insulting to me:

"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?" 'whether faculty members "watch out for signs of particular friendships".'

Also in the article is a warning:

"Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attraction to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys may have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets - like altar boys or junior seminarians - than to girls"

If they manage to keep all gay men out of the priesthood (they will even bar men who have been celibate for more than 10 years), what kind of message will that send out to the rest of the world? The Church should be one of the most loving institutions in the world, and instead it is seeking to make a group of men scapegoats for the real issue - the men (whatever their sexual orientation) that they train who have problems. Those are the men that should be sought out. But to assume that these men must be gay, or that all gay men have the potential to participate in these crimes is a gross over-simplification of the issue - and a horrible misrepresentation of facts.

Almost Unbelievable

This story is one of the saddest that has come out New Orleans. It's about a doctor who made the decision to end her patients suffering; knowing they would die if she did nothing, she gave them lethal injections of morphine. This touches on many sensitive issues, none of which have easy answers. If I were dying a slow and painful death, I know that I would chose an easy way out without a moment's hesitation - I am quite the coward when it comes to pain. But do I want someone else to have the power to make that decision for me? Do I want it to become too easy to do, so that people can legally be killed simply because it's cheaper and/or easier than trying to keep them alive? What if I don't have the power to communicate my wishes, and someone else makes the decision to give me a lethal dose of medication? The summer before my senior year of high school I worked on the cancer floor at a local hospital. I saw many older, dying people. Some were in extreme pain, some weren't. Some were alone, some had large families. Some had been waiting for the end for a long time, and wanted it to come. Some would fight for as long as they could. One woman's daughter had brought a grandchild to visit. The little boy was only 5 years old, and the dying woman knew that the only memory her grandson would have of her would not be pleasant. Another man was thankful for each and every visit that his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren made to see him. He said that he had seen them more since he went into the hospital than he had in the previous two years. I don't know what the answer to this should be. It obviously has to be an option for everyone, or an option for no one. Is it worth keeping those who would use the situation unethically away from the possibility if that means that people suffer unnecessarily? Making a decision to end a loved one's life would be no easier than standing by and watching them suffer.

Making Some Room in My Life

That's it. After 5 years 8 months and 6 days, today was my last day at J's. Finally leaving the restaurant world is going to be soooo easy - I've been ready to get out for a year or more (I sound like I was in the mob or something) - but still..... What about all of the free food? There's no way I'll ever be able to get all of the free Medium Rare Prime Rib that I want anymore. And what about all of the wacky people you get to meet? Like the hat lady that comes in twice a week - each of her hats has at least one fake bird on it, and we can judge her mood by how many birds are present on any given day. Or the man that used to come in 5 nights a week that said in his English accent"My name is Lord Devonshire, but you can call me Mr. Devonshire" His father was supposedly an Earl, but he was a real jerk - then he got arrested for something crazy and we found out he wasn't even really British! And there's no denying that my bosses have given me some great presents! Gift certificates to day spas and the World Market, great bottles of wine, lunches that they cooked from recipes they created while in culinary school... And yet, I can't wait to be gone. I'm tired of the cutthroat atmosphere. The idea that nothing any member of management can ever do will be good enough, but that they had better give 250% (most of the time at the expense of their families), or else they'd get chewed out even more than their daily quota called for. It's never about the people that work for you or the people that you're serving food to. It's all about the bottom line, percentages and how much food has disappeared over the past week. If it could be a job that was about food and people (two of my favorite things in the world), restaurants would be fun. Instead, they're all about the money. I still think that everyone should have to work as a server for at least 6 months of their life. There is no other job that teaches you so much about the public; no other job that teaches you how to treat total strangers with the respect that they deserve simply for being alive; no other job that teaches you how to appreciate the little things that people in public service do to make your life better. Waiter Rant is a great blog on the idiocies of the public in general, with some sterling examples picked out for specifics. After 11 years and 3 months working in restaurants, thankfully, my time is through.

From around the web...

The Boring Page A little wacky, but believe it or not, it has also been translated into more than 10 languages...including Pig Latin. What kind of fruit would you be?....I'm a Golden Orange: "as bright as the sun, as tart as the moon. Strong and centered, happy and shining...you lead a healthy and exciting, open and vigorous life." Some of Alabama's crazy laws that are actually still on the books:

• Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
• Persons may be placed in jail for up to five years for shooting a hole in a penny.
• To be a dominatrix is illegal.
• A US citizen can take possession of any foreign, uninhabited island, as long as it contains bird droppings.

although Kentucky has some better ones:

• Throwing eggs at a public speaker could result in up to one year in prison.
• One may not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless more than six are for sale at once.
• It is illegal to fish with a bow and arrow in Kentucky.

Well, that didn't take long....

I knew that they'd find a way to make a link between 9/11 and Katrina. How many terrorists does it take to construct a hurricane? Answer, anyone?