Tolerating Reality

I rarely recommend anything published in The New York Times. Frank Bruni's "I'm A White Man. Hear Me Out." stands as a worthy exception.

Intolerance is a hot topic in today's headlines. Whether it's a Google firing over an unpopular viewpoint, violence over political differences, or being shouted down due to philosophical differences, we Americans are behaving with increasing immaturity and irrationality in the face of opposing opinions. Black, white, left, right--we are, all of us, much more than the sum of our parts. Too many of us have forgotten that fact--or worse, we have never learned it. We are, each one of us, responsible for the decisions and actions in our own lives. It is our own choice to protest, to counter-protest, to speak out on one or the other side of an issue.

Screaming into the wind accomplishes nothing except making noise. It is not the fault of the president or the police if things go badly due to our own actions. If we decide to take a principled stand, we had best be prepared to accept the consequences. Results won't always break our way. The fact that things don't turn out as we want them do does not automatically equate with hatred, oppression, or racism. Occasionally we need to accept the challenging idea that we may have been wrong.

All of us will be wrong, sometimes. Hopefully, that's how we learn. If we learn, we grow. That's a reality of life.

Better Word Needed

When I was a college English major back in the murky mists of the 20th century, I took a course titled "Advanced Expository Writing." It was a demanding class that required a weekly submission of an 800-word typewritten essay in an assigned category.

Father Bede, the veteran professor who taught this course, was an onerous taskmaster. One spelling or typographical error equaled a ten-point deduction--and 70% was a passing grade. A student learned to be very careful very quickly in preparing assignments for Advanced Expository Writing.

The professor had his own customized style sheet for corrections and comments, one that made a copy editor's marks sheet seem simplistic. This lengthy reference document was distributed to all students on the first day of class to enable us to decipher his entries on our graded papers. One of his favored mark-ups, at least in my experience, was "BWN"--better word needed. I received numerous "BWN" notations over my questionable word choices until I learned to be very cautious and think critically about the adjective/adverb I was choosing.

Today I often remember Fr. Bede's exacting requirements as I read or listen to (what passes for) news reports. There are several words that are used endlessly by the media that could use BWN corrections. Two of my pet peeves are "chaos" and "desperate," both overused by all news outlets to a nauseating and very tiring degree.

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "chaos" primarily defines the "confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms," or secondarily "the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system...." The third definition of chaos is "a state of utter confusion" or "a confused mass or mixture." This last (least emphasized) meaning has more relevance to current events, but not every day, in every situation, regarding every person or event in the current president's administration. Someone being fired, a vote failing, a change in policy, a few Tweets at dawn, are all automatically described as "chaos." This is lazy writing at best and deliberate misrepresentation at worst. "Chaos?" BWN.

As for "desperate," that word is defined as "having lost hope," "moved by despair," "involving...extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration," "suffering extreme need or anxiety," "involving extreme danger or possible disaster," or "of extreme intensity." Everything being reported from the nation's capital, it seems, is a "desperate" attempt--to get votes, to limit an investigation, to shore up support, to change the subject. It's exhausting. It's also enough to cause one to lose hope and be moved by despair. "Desperate?" Stop being so dramatic. BWN.

In my own desperate attempts to avoid the chaos of today's daily media meltdowns, I've taken to avoiding television network newscasts and all major newspapers. "Disconnected?" If a better word is needed, it might be "bored."

A Story in Shadows

Facts are stubborn things...
~ John Adams

Wait a second. A Pakistani IT staffer for Democrats in Congress has been arrested for embezzlement and fraud while trying to flee the country? And not a word of it on the nightly news broadcasts?

Just imagine if you changed one word--"Democrat" to "Republican"--in that story line. I'll bet you we'd have a brand new 24/7 Russian-style frontier spring up instantly.

Since this story is actually significant, you'll have trouble finding it in today's collusion-obsessed media. But in "Flight and Fancy," I really enjoyed Mark Steyn's thorough and entertaining take on events.

Fox News covered the hard-drive-smashing, Clinton-connected news, which forced NBC to make a half-hearted attempt at coverage, albeit a day later. The media can drag its feet and ignore all it wants to, but people know where to get their news today. And it's not on the alphabet networks or in print dinosaur media. This story will unfold, one way or another. Facts are indeed stubborn things.

Diagnosing Shock

The sudden news of Senator John McCain’s brain cancer seemed to turn Washington D.C. on its head. Senators being interviewed seemed stunned, overwhelmed, overcome with emotion. It was quite the melodrama for that news cycle.

Why is it that a cancer diagnosis is always so shocking? If we hear of someone having a heart attack or being diagnosed with some other disease, such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, there are the customary concerned reactions and sad statements. People accept other such unfortunate news in subdued tones. But a cancer diagnosis always seems to shake people to their core.

I have some experience with cancer through my late husband, who died of it four days before he turned 55, and I think I know what causes the shocked reactions. It is, in a word--fear.

Because we are all human and vulnerable to this wanton killer, we fear cancer. We’re afraid of cancer because it is so capricious; it strikes at any age, even in infancy. Cancer is relentless; once it gets hold of you, even if you survive you live forever in its grip, wondering if it will return. Cancer treatments are grueling and debilitating, and you’re never sure they were sufficiently effective. And cancer is ubiquitous; it appears to be everywhere in the world, in every part of the human body, to be discovered at any given moment.

Besides my husband, I’ve lost several friends and two bosses to cancer. I worked with a man whose nine-month old son died of cancer. At the present time I am close to three people battling this scourge of humanity, in various forms and at different stages. One victim is 70 years old; the second is 56, and the third is 43. One is a man, two are women. They all have very different cancers that vary in severity, progression, and prognosis. Yet all will undergo the same mental and physical suffering, and all of their loved ones will endure the same emotional agony.

There is a time to be born and a time to die. We all know that no one gets out of life alive. But with cancer, we never know how long or torturous the road to our final destination might be. I believe that the shock of cancer is simply the fear of the unknown.

The Source of Our Rights

"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." 

- The Declaration of Independence


The Charlie Gard case in Great Britain is a stark warning of the dangers inherent in government-controlled healthcare. This ill and helpless 11-month old baby boy has been handed a death sentence from the highest British court by the decision to discontinue treatment. It's in Charlie's "best interests," the court has declared.

Charlie’s parents are, understandably, quite invested in their son’s survival and continued treatment. As his parents, they should have the right to pursue that course of action. But as the British courts have affirmed, the nationalized healthcare system of Great Britain has the power to usurp parental rights and order their son’s state-mandated death. This is a chilling scenario darker than the foreboding premise of Aldous Huxley’s prescient novel, Brave New World.

This is exactly the type of situation constitutional conservatives are fearful of in an ever-expanding “Big State.” Our U.S. Declaration of Independence clearly states that human rights—the first among them, life--are bestowed upon us by God. Great Britain is not the United States, but all people, everywhere, are endowed by God with the same rights. Put biblically, what the Lord gives, the Lord takes. The Founders recognized that life is the Creator's jurisdiction and incorporated the concept into the text of our first national document. All of humanity exists under one authority.

But if humanity decides to make the rules, exactly whose authority are we under, and how do the rules shift with the changing tides of history and culture? Rights granted by human beings can also be revoked by human beings of a different mindset, in a different time. That’s terrifying.

In Great Britain's national healthcare system, the almighty state has assumed supreme authority over life and death. The parents’ rights come not from God, but from human bureaucrats. So what the government gives, the government takes away.

I don’t know if anything can be done to help poor little Charlie, but that is far from the point. The point is that he has two loving parents who are willing to try anything to save him. The point is that Charlie's parents have that right--in fact, they have that moral obligation. The point is that there are doctors outside Great Britain who are willing to help them in that effort. They, too, have that right.

The point is that God, not the government, endows us with our rights--beginning with life itself.

America the Beautiful

Still the best place on the planet. Happy birthday, USA.

Questioning American Spirit

Artist's rendition of the Battle of Gettysburg

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

~ Mark 3:25

One hundred and fifty-four years ago today* marked the beginning of the three-day long Battle of Gettysburg, which marked a pivotal point in  the U.S. Civil War. This long and bloody conflict, the effects of which reverberate in our modern times, is also referred to as the War Between the States or, often popular in our southern states, "the War of Northern Aggression." A staggering 52,000 soldiers died fighting at Gettysburg--just one battle.

Consider the fact that the entire Vietnam War claimed 58,000 American lives, and you begin to understand the enormous carnage of The Civil War. Total war deaths over the four terrible years, 1861-1865, was far in excess of 600,000 soldiers.

It was during junior high school (now called "middle school") that I first studied The Civil War. I remember asking my father why it lasted so long. His answer was simple, clear, and direct: "The soldiers on both sides were Americans, and Americans never give up. "

I like to think that the American spirit survives today, that we have the tenacity and dedication--the "grit"--to stand together, strong and unwavering against attack. Perhaps the national reaction to September 11, 2001, represents a remnant of what used to be called "The Spirit of '76." But 9/11 was more than a decade and a half ago, and the world and our country have changed dramatically in that time period. In view of our bitter divisions and inflamed discourse today, what is the American spirit made of now? And how well would our collective and individual spirits serve us in a national crisis?

*Correction: 1863 was 154 years ago, not 104--but of course, you know that. Sorry, math was never my strong spot.

Worth Ten Thousand Words

The sad faces of CNN following the Republican victory in Georgia's special election:

("Biased? Who's biased? We're completely objective journalists!")

Plenty to Say Worth Hearing

I've been quoting and referencing Mark Steyn almost since this blog began. He's smart, insightful, eloquent, and nobody can turn a phrase quite like he does.

Mark Steyn is funny, he's fearless, and his commentary last night on Fox News with Tucker Carlson was "spot on," as he himself might say.  He has plenty to say worth hearing about our country's current sorry state. Treat yourself and watch all of the clips. Then add Steyn Online to your reading list. Don't forget to follow him on Twitter, too.

Summing Up the Day

"Once again it becomes obvious that if the good are not armed, the innocent will die."

~ Dennis Prager