A victory for the good guys!

There's a beautiful story out of Kansas City today about a little boy being rescued by a good Samaritan. You can read about it here.

Moral relativism in flux

Earlier today, I was speaking with a co-worker about an interview I saw recently with Michael Schiavo, the callous and insensitive individual who did not even have the decency to permit the parents of his dearly departed (now) ex-wife to be present at a proper funeral. Death by starvation and dehydration one day, the next day an autopsy, the following day a cremation, hands wiped clean of the situation, thank you very much. But, I digress.

We're going back a few weeks now, but some of you may recall the discussion on CNN's Larry King Live in which Mr. King was debating the pros and cons of Mr. Schiavo's termination of hydration/nutrition for his then wife. I found this interview to be extremely disturbing, but not for only the obvious reasons. Michael Schiavo was telling Larry King about his reasons for his decisions in the case. Mr. King responded by asking him (I may be paraphrasing somewhat, but you get the gist) "what if your morals are different from my morals?" Now I have a question for Larry King which I believe someone should challenge him on. Is it really possible for each and every one of us (all 6 billion people in the world) to have a different opinion on what moral codes, if any, are significant and worthy of adherence? Who is really to say that my morals are right and yours are wrong if it is dependent upon all of us to decide amongst ourselves what is really right or wrong? Stand to Reason has a wonderful essay on this topic here. Picture this: you walk into a new restaurant; we'll name it The Cafeteria of Morals. You may select those morals that you like, that fit into your current lifestyle, and you may even decline to acknowledge the sheer existence of those morals which you find to be distasteful or merely inconvenient. Let's just call it your moral buffet, as it were, in which you can select a la carte those societal rules you wish to follow. What would be your criterion for selecting certain moral ideals? For that matter, why even bother to select any moral code to follow? Let's just stop and think how utterly preposterous is the notion of moral relativism implied by Larry King's question. If we can all pick and choose our own morals that are contrived by men and women, why bother having any morals? Shouldn't morals be something that stands for something greater? Something that may have been initiated by (do I dare say) God? I would urge anyone reading this to be thoughtful in their musings regarding whether or not our society's morally relativistic leanings are truly the road down which we desire for us, our sons, and our daughters to travel. Moral relativism is a sickness permeating the very foundations of our society. If left unabated, the prognosis for our very existence may be in doubt. After all, how are we as a people to have any foundation for steering young people in the correct direction if there are no guidelines or consensus for what constitutes right and wrong or good and evil?

Saint John Paul II The Great

Pope John Paul II died yesterday after a long battle with severe health problems. I would like to offer my small tribute which I have culled from various news sources today. The magnificent story of John Paul II began unceremoniously, as he came from humble beginnings in Poland. As a child, born Karol Jozef Wojtyla, he often played with non-Catholic neighborhood children which, at that time, was not customary. His personal life was burdensome as he lost many family members early on. He went on to help shelter Jews being persecuted during the Nazi invasions. In fact, he himself had been oppressed by the Nazis as he would later find it necessary to conduct his theological studies "underground." It would have been very easy for him to succumb to the pressures of the time, yet he is known to have never displayed any signs of anti-Semitism. A trained actor, his theatrical skills were most-assuredly an asset later in his papacy as he believed actions spoke louder than words and became a master communicator worldwide. He was instrumental in developing a church in his native Krakow, which had been intentionally forbidden from offering places of worship by its Soviet occupiers. Later as Bishop and Cardinal of Krakow he further deepened his faith and in 1978, was elected Pope. His moral advocacy was an instrumental factor in the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe. Even an assassin’s bullet could not stop his righteous and idealistic leadership as he later met and forgave this very same individual who most would call an evil-doer. His papacy had been criticized at times as not being progressive enough or of not being in touch with the world of today. He was conservative on many issues, yet liberal on others, as highlighted in this insightful article. But, there is one fact that is not in doubt; his faith was unwavering and, even though his ideas may not have always been viewed as popular or politically-correct, he stood his ground to maintain traditional church doctrine. He refused to cower to majority rule and insisted on professing the truth as something worthy of protecting. In our society which is sometimes morally relativistic, his teachings were meaningful, sometimes beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. God-willing, the next Pope will be similarly inclined to help steer us down the correct moral, ethical, and values-based path, instead of the dysfunctional path down which our society appears to be headed. To be perfectly honest, I was not aware of his unbelievable level of greatness until I viewed the countless hours of media coverage this weekend following his passing. Although I was, of course, aware of his goodness, I can now only envy those who were fortunate enough to have met this most marvelous, inspirational person. He was truly respected and beloved by individuals of many faiths. Some have speculated that his legacy will be reflected by him eventually being named Saint John Paul II The Great. This was indeed a man who was a bright light, a shining beacon, to the world and his life is something that we can now all celebrate. As many have intimated, his was truly a remarkable and wonderful life. Amen.     

PBS’ Frontline has a very enlightening account of the life of Pope John Paul II which you can access by clicking here.

Another thorough historical account of The Pope’s life is accessible here.

CNN.com presents an article here.

Let us Pray

As we have just gotten through the emotional ordeal of Terri Schiavo, we are faced with the prospects that yet another beloved individual is apparently terminally ill. Pope John Paul II appears to be in a condition which seems, by all accounts, to be quite hopeless. Regardless of one's faith, or even if you are not a person of faith, I would like to kindly request us all to pray for him. He is a man of inestimable value, especially when viewed from the standpoint that there are many confusing aspects in the world today. We should all revere those among us who are forces for right instead of wrong, positive instead of negative, and yes, good over evil. Sure, some of his views may be considered controversial, yet his overall message has been that of someone who has been a tremendous positive force in the world. Whether one is Catholic or not, we can all agree that his life has been a source of uplift for the human condition. For this reason, let us pray for him.

A Tribute to Terri Schiavo

For those of us who prayed for a miracle for Terri, it is hard to believe that Terri has died. While it is not shocking that anyone would die after 13 days with no food or water, it is nevertheless the final note for her battle for her life here on Earth. Mr. Felos, Michael's attorney, was quite offensive in his claims that Terri had been "beautiful" as she lay dying these past 2 weeks. He then said there was music playing for her (yet they claim she was not able to hear) and were giving her morphine (yet they also claim she could not feel). Would this have been her final wish? We may never know the whole truth. What we do know is that Michael won a malpractice lawsuit and vowed to take care of her for the rest of her life. He then attained a nursing degree and this would further help care for her. Then, 8 years later, he had a revelation that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive in what became her deteriorated mental state. Furthermore, Mr. Schiavo refused to divorce her and permit her parents to provide her ongoing care. In fact, he continued to fight endlessly to fulfill her purported wishes to die while he maintained what some may view as an adulterous relationship and now has two small children from this union. It seems Terri simply did not conveniently fit into his newfound lifestyle. According to news reports, Michael would not even permit Terri's parents from being at her bedside earlier today so that they could be with their dying daughter. I cannot think of any other rationale for this behavior on his part except that he is self-centered and evil. But, I digress. The bottom line now is this: It is a very sad day for Terri's parents and siblings. Only God knows if Michael feels the same level of anguish over this situation which he so fervently claims. God willing, none of us will need to face these issues in the future, but if we do, I would hope we continue to strive for legislation which will help further the cause of valuing life. This, when viewed in the context of the "bigger picture" is what this story is all about: Life, itself.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center has an excellent article written by Eric Cohen which you can read here.

A great article

For those of you who are inclined to learn more about the Terri Schiavo case, I would urge you to read the following article published in The Village Voice:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html

Let us keep praying for Terri.

Soul-less Michael

Let's play devil's advocate and say that Michael Schiavo is telling the truth when he claims Terri would not want to continue living as she is. In the past few days, news has come out claiming that Terri has recently made attempts to indicate "I want to live." If Michael is the loving husband he claims to be and his sole motivation for each and every one of his actions is to fulfill Terri's wishes, would it not behoove him to have her feeding tube reinserted, pending further investigation of her condition? Alot of pressure has been placed on Governor Bush, President Bush, Congress, the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the infamous Judge Greer who was the arbiter of the final directive to disconnect her in the first place. Legally the burden may, indeed, rest with them. But, what about morally? Is it moral that Michael prohibited Terri, a Catholic, from receiving Communion this holy day of Easter? And what about the possibility that there may be a level of consciousness inside Terri of which current medical scholars are not aware? Sure, it may be a long-shot, but wouldn't you want your relatives to explore this long-shot if you were in Terri's position? Is it moral that Michael would not exercise every possible avenue to explore any means possible to revitalize or rehabilitate the wife he claims to love? Sure, public opinion polls indicate they are on the side of Michael, but do these polls really matter? It would appear that Michael's philosophy is "kill her at any cost." With a relative like this, who needs enemies. Sadly, time is running out for Terri. It would appear that Michael's desires to dispose of Terri and have her cremated are likely to come to fruition sometime this week. The responsibility for her premature demise are not on Governor Bush, et al. The responsibility for her death lies squarely on Michael's shoulders and we may never know the true story. He has stolen Terri from her parents, preventing them from the loving interaction which may have helped her in the first place. I hope he has a nice life with his new wife. Chalk one up for the bad guys.

Sick

And now the news comes out that the thug who killed the Lunsford girl was actually hired by a local elementary school, as a handy-man, after his previous sex-crimes convictions. How sick is that?

The Evil Next Door

Ok, people. Don’t you think it’s time we stop coddling sex offenders who prey on children? We have the 9-year-old girl in Florida to which that cretin confessed to her assault and murder. My heart goes out to her poor father. What rationale can we offer him for having this “person,” who already had 21 convictions, 3 of which were sex crimes, out on the street? Then we have the “person” called “Avila” who is pleading innocent to the Samantha Runyon assault and murder. She was the 5-year-old girl in Orange County who was simply playing outside her condo with her friend. These “men” are nothing less than beasts! May I offer my suggestion? If someone is convicted of a sex crime involving a child, they should be banished to live in an area with no children for the rest of their lives. If they have a second offense, they should have their testicles cut-off with a rusty and semi-serrated, yet dull, butter knife.

(Truth be told, these crimes should be "1-strike-and-you're-out." But, in deference to those who may feel that someone may be wrongly convicted, a second conviction should ensure adequate punishment is meted out.)

Countless studies have shown that most attempts at rehabilitation for these vermin are futile, at best. Yet, this behavior is simply despicable and should not be tolerated in a civil society, end of story. They say that you can tell the degree to which a society is civilized by how they treat their most defenseless members. When we permit the rights for gainful employment and rehabilitation of these monstrous humanoids to trump the rights of our innocent children, who is more barbaric, us or them?

Schindler versus Schiavo

We can contemplate all we want about whether Congress becoming involved in the Terri Schiavo case is an intrusion into family affairs. The bottom line is that she will be kept alive for the foreseable future and thus we, as civilized beings, will have erred on the side of the sanctity of life. Sure, the estranged husband may be telling the truth when he claims Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive by heroic means, but should he not also need to demonstrate some effort towards her rehabilitation before "pulling the plug." By outward appearances, he has moved on with his life with a fiance and 2 children with his common-law wife. There is an appearance of conflict of interest given his new life and his spending most of the $1 million malpractice settlement, not on Terri's therapy, but on attorney's fees in an attempt to permit her to die. Let's just say something just doesn't smack of a deep level of sincerity. Even if Terri's desires had been to be permitted to die, I believe her husband should have made every conceivable effort to help her recover. Then, and only then, should anything related to "physician-assisted suicide" be debated. I don't think this would have been against Terri's wishes. I also feel the Schindler family would feel better if Terri's husband had made greater efforts toward her rehabilitation. As we stand now, The Senate and The House have approved a bill and the President has signed it. Terri continues to waste away as she goes on 60 hours with no nutrition and no water. We await the Federal courts in Florida as they decide whether the feeding tube should be reinserted. The timer is running. The moral is that we should all decide now how we wish to be treated, in the unlikely and unfortunate event that our family members need to make these decisions in the future. We should all write a Living Will. It's hard to think about uncomfortable issues, but obviously these can be even harder not to think about. By doing this, we can eliminate any undue burden for our children, our spouses, or our parents.

Very sad indeed

It looks like we have yet another tragedy. A registered sex offender has confessed to abducting and killing Jessica Lunsford, a missing 9-year-old Florida girl, according to police there. Supposedly this cretin snatched her from her own bedroom, reminiscent of what happened to Polly Klaas in California, several years ago. Why as a civilized society do we tolerate despicable individuals living in our neighborhoods? When will we learn that the rights of innocent children far outweigh any potential or perceived loss of liberty or rights of convicted sex offenders? More to the point, why do we tolerate such pleasant treatment of sex offenders, especially those convicted of offenses against our children? Countless studies have shown that perpetrators of this ilk have virtually no chance of rehabilitation and any attempts at such ill-conceived notions are simply giving these predators one more chance to commit these heinous acts. As parents we need to defend those who are least able to defend themselves, namely our children. Is there anyone in their right mind who believes a convicted child sex offender should be coddled and welcomed into our communities with open arms? As far as I am concerned, anyone who has been convicted once should be banished from any civil contact for the rest of their lives. They should not be entitled to education, employment, recreation, or anything near children, period! In other words, one strike and you're out.

Say Whaaaat?

Well, it looks like Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death, but Robert Blake hasbeen found not guilty. How could this be? After all, there doesn't seem to have beenany witnesses or any concrete (no pun intended) evidence for either of them.

If anything, Blake's purported discussions regarding "hitmen"seems to be more damning than anything Peterson did, although Petersoncertainly had coincidental and suspicious behavior. Or maybe it was the O.J.mentality in which a "star" (used in the loosest sense, although Iwas a big Baretta fan) cannot be convicted.

I think the only logical explanation is that Scott Peterson seemed like a cad and ascoundrel and Laci and Connor were the obvious,innocent victims.

Conversely, while Robert Blake also came off as somewhat of a scoundrel (although abumbling buffoon of a scoundrel), Bonnie Lee was the epitome of an individualundeserving of sympathy. Not that her unsavory behavior warranted her murder,but what can you do?

The bottom line is, would it not have been easier for both of these"gentlemen" (or should I say, Scott, since he is the one convicted)to have sought out the services of their favorite attorney competent in divorceand family law, than to go this twisted and demented route? It makes you wonderwhat is in the minds of some people, doesn't it.

Good vs. Evil

Is it just me, or is there a decided lack of courtesy rampant in today's society?

Here are some examples:

Example 1:

My son and I were at a local library waiting very patiently as one librarian made a cursory (and guttural) gesture asking "are you returning books?" Another librarian was obviously too busy on the telephone and did not offer any contact, whatsoever. When I approached the "more conversant" librarian to request her search for our desired selection, the other librarian leapt into action to help someone on her own computer screen and did not hesitate to tell me "you need to move over there." I'm thinking there may be a more polite way to convey this message. Anyway, I wasn't ready to play their "stand here, speak there" compliance game so I told the less-grumpy librarian that the grumpy one seemed to be going out of her way not to help me. She offered no response except for a knowing silence....

Example 2:

At a recent performance of a children's theatrical performance, we were seated in the top row. Unfortunately, this was directly in front of the ushers rest area. Now, we all know it is common practice to refrain from speaking loudly at any performance, whether cinematic or a stage presentation. These ushers seemed to have not received this societal memo as they spoke very loudly and treated us to a security conference which would have put the Department of Homeland Security to shame. They continued to point out every time one of them spotted an errant flashlight or other incidental infraction in the audience and debated, quite publicly, how their mobility impairments meant they could not round-up these scofflaws.

The most ironic part of all of this was that by their loud conversations, they were causing a greater level of distraction than the one they feared would be caused by the flashlights. Isn’t it sad when the children in the audience were acting in a sensitive and conscientious manner yet I would need to ask one of the ushers to "please have your friends keep their voices down; it’s very distracting." Oops! Footnote: no one but the ushers seemed to care about the flashlights.

Example 3:

My son and I were waiting very patiently for the aforementioned show to begin. People of all ages would stroll by our seats towards their own. It didn't seem to make a difference if the person was 5 or 50, black or white or Hispanic, male or female, one parent or two or even a grandparent, the common denominator was that fewer than 10% said "excuse me" as they made their way to their seats. Then, finally, one man was walking alone and exclaimed the much hoped for phrase: "excuse me" and, as someone who was raised with proper manners, it was like music to my ears. This was a perfect "teachable moment" as I imparted to my son that it would be nice if everyone acted like that considerate gentleman. My son wholeheartedly agreed.

Example 4:

We went to a fast-food chicken restaurant known for their flame-broiled chicken. I had this brilliant idea that if we pick-up some chicken, Daddy wouldn't have to cook tonight. Well... things didn't go as well as planned. After waiting for 5 minutes to place our order, things were looking up as we were now in the queue to receive our much-anticipated chicken order and be on our way. Another 5 minutes passed and we were over the ten-minute mark. My son suggested that we simply ram the car ahead of us out of the way so we can get to the chicken faster (another teachable moment, as I suggested police may become involved). My son usually has some marvelous suggestions, especially within the context of his being rather youngish. Unfortunately, I had to decline that particular suggestion, but he did have another suggestion which was a bit more reasonable, which was that we should just go home and call the police and ask them to get our chicken. Police aren't that busy on Sunday afternoons, are they? Anyway, after 13 long minutes, we finally got our chicken order. The drive-through window representative did not even offer a "Thank you." In fact, this gem of an employee seems to have not passed his Customer Service 101 class as he just walked away and I wasn't even sure if the transaction was complete.

This was a very disappointing fast-food experience, but I happened to notice on the bottom of the receipt, an invitation to call and offer one's opinion on their service. Well, since they asked...

This seemed like a great opportunity to show my son some customer advocacy in action. I called the local number directly back to this store and the manager answered. I told them the problem of waiting 13 minutes only to be offered not even a "Thank you." The manager was obviously another recent dropout of Customer Service U as the only help they could provide was to simply say: "Thank you." She seemingly wore her badge of apathy like any proud yet mediocre employee would. In a valiant, yet presumably futile attempt to drive the point home, I mentioned to them that we can go to one of their other restaurants next time. I then hung-up and my son eagerly asked me: "What did they say?" I told him all they said was "Thank you." He asked most quizzically "Thank you?" Obviously the response was as unsatisfactory to him as it was for me. I had to explain to him that "unfortunately, some people just don't seem to care." I asked him what he would have liked them to say. His insights were superb, yet the desired response had also eluded me up to this point. He said they could have just said "I'm sorry!" So simple, yet so utterly brilliant. Pearls of wisdom from my son who demonstrated more business acumen than the manager and the window clerk put together.

This leads me back to my original thesis, that of the coarsening of our society. Are any of you parents out there as incensed as I am at the degradation of proper manners and overall etiquette in our world today? I think there are a lot of people who feel they are simply too busy to say "please" or "thank you?" Maybe they feel it is a sign of weakness to be kind to someone else. Maybe they feel if they are nice to another person and the other person ignores them, it will be like a rejection. Whatever the reasons, is it really that hard to treat others in a manner conducive to civilized interaction? I really don't think it is. The callous behavior some of us are modeling for our children will be the callous interaction that will be all too commonplace with their friends, relatives, and neighbors, when they grow up. However, it is not too late. Take the time to do the right thing. Take the time to live by the Golden Rule. You may have forgotten how it goes since you probably saw it last in your early years at school. It is a simple motto encouraging a conscious effort to treat people in the same way you would like to be treated:

"Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."

Nothing more, nothing less. Again, simple, yet brilliant. Just make sure to set aside enough time the next time you go for take-out chicken.

Until next time, this is Rich Gordon reminding you that when it comes to kids, involvement counts!