Remembering

 It was 41 years ago today that I lost my dad.  It was the Friday of Memorial Day weekend, I was called home just in time to see him being taken in the ambulance.  I knew he was gone when I saw him, I didn't know how.  I was 13 years old.  He was 53 years old.  In a few weeks I will be 54, and it has been on my mind a lot.  You see, in a twist of fate this was a repeat of family history as my grandfather, my dad's dad, died early too, when my dad was 13 years old.  Both he and I share the story of coming of age without a father.

There is something fitting however that Memorial day will always be linked to my dad's memory.  As a teen, my dad joined the army during World War II fighting to liberate Europe from the Nazis and later traveling half way around the world to prepare for the invasion of Japan that never happen.  He did however get to Japan, and then Korea, where he fought and nearly died being shot, filled with shrapnel, and spent some time as a prisoner of the Chinese.  He did not die on the battlefields he fought on, but I feel like the totality of the hard life he had contributed to his early death.

We often think that each generation should have a better life than the one before.  I would have to say by every measure people usually use,  my life has been that.  While I have had both tragedy and struggle, nothing matches the years my dad had from his late teens through his 20s.  But I am proud my dad was part of what has been called the greatest generation.  I sometimes feel in awe of him, he fought to rid the world of the evil of Nazism and fascism.  He answered the call when the military was seen as a wall against Communist expansion.  His bravery and sense of duty is far more than I think I could ever muster myself.   I never got to talk to my dad man-to-man.  He was gone before I was a man.  I think the first thing I would do is thank him for dedicating so much of his life to preserving American values.  I am sorry I never got the chance to do that.

For me Memorial Day will always be linked to my dad's death.  I will always think of the conversations we never had, how I could never tell him how he influenced parts of what I became, to learn about the stories of his youth in the infantry, and of course to argue about my own rebellion.  But I take a minute every year to remember the man, his image is fading, more so since I lost my mom.  But he is still part of who I am.  Francis Oscar Kelley may not be a name that history will record with any fanfare, but for me, his short life was powerful, important and shouldn't be forgotten.  As we remember those that lost their lives in direct service, please indulge to remember a man who gave so much of his life to the country.  I still miss him.

Drawing a Line

There are partners of Indy Car drivers at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway today wearing shirts that say "NOT Your Body, NOT Your Choice".  When we look at the abortion debate one of the things that often is said by the people who don't want to have abortion legal at all is that the embryo or fetus is not the woman's body.  They argue that it is a separate human being and thus has the right to live, even if that means a woman must carry it to term.  Recent so-called Heart Beat Bills have this at their center.  They do not exclude the prohibition even in the case of rape or incest.  In some cases it could mean a woman who miscarries has to prove she didn't cause it.  This clearly suggests that the life of the unborn developing embryo or fetus is worth more than the comfort of the woman who carries it, even if that is the result of a non-consensual act.   Despite what some lawmaker said the other day rape is never consensual.  There are provisions for the life of the mother, but that seems to be a difficult thing to adjudicate if someone like a zealous DA decides that he or she are going to second guess a doctor. 

So we have a bit of an issue for me.  Where do we draw the line on this?  Let's take the argument that the fetus is a separate human who is entitled to life, thus the woman who is carrying it must continue to do so, even if against her will, and may put her health at risk though not immediately, for the purpose of the other life.  This would be true if the sex act that produced the fetus was consensual or not. 

So let's look at a person whose kidneys have stop functioning.  Chances are you know someone in this situation or someone who has a family member.  They need a transplant as dialysis is no longer working.  You are a young, healthy person, who has two kidneys and you match perfectly with the person in need.  You only need one kidney to survive so the right thing to do is to give your kidney to that person so they can live.  Many people do this, even for strangers and it is a wonderful thing as a life is saved.  But you are reluctant to give up a kidney.  What might happen in the future?  It involves surgery, that will cost you time at work, maybe a promotion.  You had a trip to Europe planned and now it is on hold if you save this person.  Can the government compel you to put your life on hold to save the life of another person?  If not then why should a woman, pregnant, have to do the same?  You could argue she is responsible for getting pregnant but there are many factors that excuse her from the responsibility.  Rape and incest are the most common and recent laws don't seem to care about that.  But there is also a partner who removes a condom without telling the woman.  Failed birth control, be that pills, IUD or other form.  Failed sterilization method which sometimes happens with vasectomies.  Why should the life of the fetus be more important than the life of someone needing a kidney? 

That is the real issue here.  We can debate about when abortion is appropriate or not.  I have never felt we should view abortion as a simple means of birth control. But as a man I don't think that I should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.  I do think that I have a responsibility to speak out on what I think might benefit us all. 

We can have fewer abortions if we approached teaching about sexuality with the importance and dignity it deserves. I believe in comprehensive sexuality education, easy access to birth control and education on how it works, and a sense of body responsibility which includes helping both young woman and men understand consent.  We know this by studies that a good long-term sexuality education program, based on facts and reality, can delay first intercourse, help young men and women act responsibility when they do have sex, and can make the idea of abortion less important and necessary.  If only we would try it. 

But in the end the issue is still who can tell you that you must save a life?  An 11 year old girl, who was raped by her father, pregnant and scared should be able to terminate that pregnancy using the same moral judgement that allows a 23 year old man, healthy and strong, to ignore the call to donate a kidney, or part of a liver or even bone marrow (which he will grow back) or blood for that matter. If you demonize one, you must be ready to demonize the other.  And if you do that, I have to ask, when can we come over to get your kidney?
  

The Idiots are Coming

There are members of state legislatures around the country are making law about abortion from a remarkable wellspring of ignorance.  In Ohio a law was written to suggest the ectopic pregnancy (a implantation of zygote outside the uterus) can simply be plucked out and moved to the uterus for further development.  This is something that simply can't be done.  There is no medical technology to do that. But this ignorance is part of the thought process that leads to dangerous law. Another member of a western state house suggested that a woman could swallow a pill camera to take pictures of the developing fetus.  A right-wing noise machine voice said that if a father rapes his 12 year old and takes her for an abortion then the evidence goes away, but if she has the baby then there is something to convict the father about.  I am not sure how that makes sense but maybe he believes like the Alabama sponsor of the new Alabama law that basically makes all abortions criminal and all miscarriages suspect.  He said that you can still get an abortion BEFORE you know you are pregnant, in part because it takes time for the chromosomes to get together. There are also people making laws that think abortions require cutting open the uterus.   This level of ignorance that is driving some of the features of these laws is stunning.  I am reminded of little blue and pink groups in elementary school that showed us how the body works.  I then taught this at the university level and the in utero development section was quite simple and I wish these guys had taken my class.  I really can't get by the fact that there are people who think you can exam a developing fetus by swallowing a camera pill or that you can pluck a zygote that has implanted outside of the uterus and just re-implant it like a Lego.  I really can't understand how we have laws developed outside of facts and reality.  It would be like passing laws to make it illegal to own unicorns in the city or allowing your dragon to breath fire around children.  While there have been times in history where abortion debates were based on attempts to understand human develop and the cost/benefit analysis on how to restrict access while embracing life, today I feel the lawmakers who are trying to overturn the right to an abortion from the Roe v. Wade case care so little about facts and reality and that is dangerous.  This ignorance will lead to women dying, to women after the trauma of miscarriage having to prove it wasn't intentional, and to the rise is dangerous back alleys again.  This is wrong.  If you live in a state doing this tell them it is wrong.  If you want to debate abortion get an education and if you think these new laws are about sanctity of life you are being fooled. 

We Have Become Uncomfortably Numb

Last week I began writing this in light of the shooting at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the fact that as I was learning about the shooting from Twitter, major news organizations were simply ignoring it for the most part in favor of another story about Washington.  While that was important, the fact that 2 people were killed and 4 injured on a college campus seemed to be relegated to a crawl on the screen.  Within a few days of that April 30th incident, here in Indianapolis on May 4th, four people were injured in a night that found many victims of gun fire.  Then yesterday, in Highland Ranch, Colorado.  A Denver suburb only 7 miles from Columbine High School, two young people entered the school and started shooting.  One student was fatally shot and eight others were injured; two suspects were taken into custody by police.  The dead student like on of those in Charlotte, ran toward the gun to save others.  A child in 2nd grade said she heard gun fire and knew what to do because she has been trained since Kindergarten.

What is amazing is that these stories come and go and we move on. There have been 105 events where guns have injured or killed more than 4 people in a single event.  How many do you remember hearing about?  Did any happen near where you live?  They happen everywhere.  What is amazing is that while some are criminals killing criminals during criminal behavior or acts of passion fueled by drugs or alcohol, some are clearly premeditated acts of terror.  We have grown used to them being part of the background noise that is our culture.  As I woke this morning to find out more about the Colorado shooting it was easier to find articles being critical of the Met Gala and the misunderstanding of the concept of Camp and virtually dozens of predictions on the Game of Thrones finale.  Not to mention the special report on a baby in England who the vast majority of people will never meet. 

The media will pick at the bones of survivors, doing interviews with family and friends, but rarely do they maintain the story as the public health crisis it is.  When the ratings fall the news will move on and it will be another story people will only slightly remember.

I understand that it is hard to keep hearing stories of horror in the real world and retreat to the fictional one, or the pablum of human interest, I am so often struck by the lack of care so many have when it doesn't directly touch them.  But children dying in school settings should not be the price we pay for freedom.  Kevlar jackets, blankets and backpacks should not be lauded as important innovations in the growing security industrial complex but met with sadness.  Children as young as 5 should not have to learn sing-sing lessons about what to do if the shooter is in the school.  We cant' grow numb to this.  It is a national crisis.

Beefing up security, armed guards, armed teachers, metal detectors, etc. are band-aids on a gaping wound and while we might find the aesthetic more pleasant it doesn't address the issue.   We must find a way to keep violence as an easy answer to a problem and we must not resign ourselves to this being the way it has to be.

We also don't have to give up our freedoms to do it.  There is space for providing road blocks for people who shouldn't have weapons to get them as well as change the culture we live in so that gun violence is not seen as a regular solution.  It has happened in other places.  We can move forward to make the country safer.  To do that we must recognize the problem.  After Sandy Hook and the death of all those 5 year olds I thought we would change.  What we did was get numb to the deaths.  For me that is uncomfortable.  

What Game of Thrones Teaches about Diversity

There will be spoilers here but seriously...catch up and watch the episodes we can't all wait for you.  



The Last of the Starks, the fourth episode of the eighth and final season of HBO’s Game of Thrones, was another shift for the series as we come to the final two episodes.  In it there was a lot of post-Night King threat set ups for the coming end.  For many the show has already jumped the shark as the build up to the attack of the dead ended with such an abrupt event (Arya killing the Night King and the dead just crumbling) that people feel everything else will be anti-climactic.  I will note here that many rushed to attack the show runners for having Arya kill the Night King calling her a Mary Sue, a term I had to look up.  It refers to a female character who suddenly becomes a hero without flaws.  This is often an attack on a competent woman who acts in a way that seems to grow out of no-where.  (Rey's talent with a lightsaber for example).  However Arya was a well-trained assassin who had already managed to kill and entire house so........  But to my point.  



In this episode we see Sansa Stark, the lady of Winterfell, tell the Hound that she would still be the meek little girl of season one if she hadn't been, traded like chattel in two marriages, one from a family that caused the death of her father, her dire wolf, her brothers and mother.  Been manipulated by a man who claimed to love her but killed her aunt, sold her to a sadist and basically used her for his own purposes.  And of course that she was brutally raped and tortured by the Ramsey Bolton, who she was forced to marry.  She said that is what made her strong.  



Well, Twitter had none of that.  Women all over Twitter, in real time were outraged.  How could this be a line that Sansa would utter?  Yes we are all the culmination of our experiences but survivors of rape have told us that we have to stop pretending that rape and abuse make women stronger.  They are survivors because they were already strong and endured.  



The point is that in the writers' room a woman could have pointed this out.  (That and the fact that a couple times in bed with Jaime turned Brianne into a puddle when he was leaving).  And this is an argument for diversity in many places.  You see a perspective of a woman, who can see that her strength doesn't come from what men do to her but from her ability to endure and conquer could change the narrative.  That doesn't mean experience doesn't play a role, it is just not a total external thing.  This simple change could be a big difference.  



Too often we here that diversity is about political correctness.  If a white man is best for the job then he should get it.  What is missing is asking what "best for the job" truly means.  Having a voice who sees the world with different eyes can in the long run be better than a more educated person who thinks exactly as everyone else.  Once in her past, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor said ""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,".  She was trying to inspire young students but the point is that life experience does influence how you see the world.  That is true in court cases, boards of directors and of course television writing.  Letting someone in whose background is radically or even slightly different than your own can easily help you see the things you can't see.  It isn't that you choose not to, but that you don't focus on what you see as important.  To be truly honest here I didn't see Sansa's speech as problematic until the first rape survivor tweet said something about it.  When the 10th came through I realized I needed to rewatch what she said and rethink my own biases.  It is a difficult thing to look beyond your own bias and so we seek others to point them out.  If Game of Thrones, a college campus, a corporate board or Presidential cabinet want to see more of the world in front of them, engaging people who are different in a lot ways, but especially experiences, is important.   So when someone tells you it is unfair, politically correct, or somehow racist, sexist etc. to engage diversity tell them simply, we only have a limited way to see the world, diversity brings in colors we don't normally see, shows them to us and helps us find a way to understand them.  Diversity gives us a super power and we are all worthy of that.