Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

Everywhere a soap box, yet always so dirty.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

When my friend Girl Friday writes, I just sit back and enjoy. More than once I've linked to her posts.

The latest post contains a quip that really sums up a concept I've grown fairly disgusted with. I call it "poli-bleed." It's where everything becomes a platform for political bickering. In this case, a site about fashion, in which a commenter takes a political swipe for no apparent reason. Girl Friday responds exactly right:

"Poor Stacey forgot she was on a fashion website and not on her lavender-scented soap box."

I have seen on various sites, ranging from hair style how-tos (yes, I would like to know how to do things with my hair) to cooking tips, comments left by people that have nothing to do with the topic and are merely ill-thought low-wit cheap-shot political barbs.

Are we so rabid about our political beliefs that the directions on how to create a chignon or where to buy business attire inspire venemous comments on Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Is everything political?

Step back and away and from the little pit of rage that is your personal politics and find a way to enjoy and adapt to life as it is, people. It seems as if some folks are so quivering with political anger that they can barely order a sandwich at a restaurant without some kind of misplaced diatribe. An open comments section on any website is simply too much to resist. It must be filled with garbage.

As Girl Friday said in her witty post: I am so bored already.

Labels: blogging, links, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Sarah Palin. Wow.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 17 comments link this post

When Sarah Palin came out onto the stage to speak tonight (as I watched on a TV), the hair on my arms stood up.That last time anything rose for the occasion of a politician's speech was when I caught a Mitt Romney clip many months ago and I about lost my lunch. The guy repulsed me, so slick.

Frankly, in the last years, I've grown disinterested in politics. It's all promises and no results. It's slick and fake and about polls and images and Oprah crying her eyelashes off because of fine rhetoric. I've slouched my way through elections, performing my civic duty mainly because of local issues and races, grown used to the fact the Presidential elections were just always going to annoy and disappoint.

But suddenly the McCain-Palin ticket.

So Palin's daughter is pregnant. So the boyfriend had a pro-Obama image on his now-defunct My Space page. So there's talk of her own "trooper gate" and now a former police chief is screaming to the press that he was unfairly fired when she was mayor. The National Enquirer has a story about an alleged affiar or something. Blah blah blah.

When you have people of the opposing side now saying things they have previously held dear, for example, that her motherhood makes her unable to do the job, and the suggestion that a Down Syndrome baby should be aborted (nice pro-choice concept, second-guessing her choice) -- well. I can't let that slide by. I mean, it's easy to be pro-life when you never have a need to put it to the test. Palin lived what she believed, even when the decision was difficult.

I watched her talk and for the first time in years I felt like I could believe words coming out of a politician's mouth. There was a real woman. She runs, she hunts, she's smart, she shoots, she dresses fabulously, she doesn't take any guff, she leads, she loves, she's a mom. She didn't come off like a woman trying to be a man to fit into a man's world, which Hillary sometimes did. Instead of the attitude that she wouldn't stay home and bake cookies*, she comes out poised and strong and looking fantastic and confident and speaks with skill and directness and proudly introduces her family and makes no small fact that she was in love with her husband. It's like she's marching into the man's world unapologetically, head up, a woman. She came out swinging and tough and at the same time, a real mom with a new baby with special needs. She was funny and sharp and intelligent. Tough but soft. Real. Sharp witted. No doubt a woman, with a unique strength. Not perfect, and neither is her family, but real.

She connected.

What a contrast to the camera panning the crowd on a stuffy, expressionless Newt Gingrich and other political regulars.

So after she gets done speaking, I have to suffer through George "I've used up half the world's hairspray" Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer (who saw fit to classily point out to the viewing audience the oldest daughter who was "expecting") yammer on about what they saw were missteps and what they thought weren't.

I don't care what those talking heads think. I have the same love for them that I have for most politicians.

Hearing about McCain's story and seeing the veterans and hearing her talk about what those experiences taught them, in support of McCain, just made me want to get up and vote right now**.

UPDATE: My friend informs me that Palin is a pilot; I'd heard that her husband was, and that he had a small plane, but I hadn't heard that Palin was. Anyone know? I read that Cindy McCain is; she was afraid of flying so she went and got her private pilot's license or something.

* What's wrong with more people baking cookies? I like to bake cookies. I like to bake my dad his favorite: molasses cookies. No shame there. Doesn't mean anything as far as my place, worth, abilities or qualifications as a women. I just like baking cookies.

** Too bad Dobson said he'd "pull that lever." That annoys me. For some reason it makes me think he was saying "pull my finger."

Labels: politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The right backdrop.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

So Obama and the Democrats went for a Greek Temple/Lincoln Memorial-type backdrop for his big speech at the Democratic convention. In a football field.

It seems really cheesy.

So much spectacle. It's somewhat like erecting a Greek temple in the middle of the Colosseum, which should drive any historian and philosopher nuts.

I don't know; maybe they got it exactly right.

And then there are the Republicans.The way the news has been describing John McCain, one would think a set piece from the film "Jurassic Park" would have been appropriate. Nevertheless, the Repubs have selected New Orleans and a possibly serious hurricane (Gustav) for their convention backdrop*.

You have to hand it to the Republicans for their backdrop choice. At least they were a bit more honest as to what citizens of this country can expect from government and politics: chaos, destruction, and a lot of hot air.

*See comments.

Labels: politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Obamageddon.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I have no idea why I get so many emails from various Republican and conservative online sources; I don't recall signing up for any of them.

Today's email brought one from Townhall.com with the terror-inducing subject line of "Headed for Obamageddon?"

Holy cow! Obamageddon!

I believe I'll be using the Biblical prophesy of Armageddon for everything, now. It's going to be the new Hitler/Nazi meme.

Financialageddon: what I'm facing now as I work on my checkbook.

Cramageddon: what I'm trying to do in preparation for the FAA private pilot test.

Fanageddon: the time of year we are just beginning to emerge from in which the hot and humid temperatures made even the weakest ceiling fan a god-send.

And so forth.

I notice that Townhall.com is giving away a copy of Charles Colson's book Born Again with subscriptions to the magazine. I read the book about seven or so years ago, and actually found it rather good. I'd encourage you to just get the book on its own, lest your inbox be filled with Townhall.com Spamageddon.

Labels: books, current events, humor, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Linkage: The 2008 election, summed up.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

Regarding the upcoming election... what, me worry?

At least the TV commercials will be gone.

Labels: links, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Follow the leader.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 9 comments link this post

Regarding youth pastors (leaving out any in-depth discussion on my thoughts on the concept of "youth ministry", its validity, what it promotes, the self-feeding problems it creates by its very nature, and how some things can be tied to concepts of the idea of "youth culture" as found in this book), I have come to discover a very obvious truth:

Youth follow as they are led.

So:

The louder and more obnoxious the youth leader, the louder and more obnoxious the youth group.

You may fill in the above adjectives using: boorish, simplistic, unthinking, thoughtful, considerate, devoted, surface, shallow, deep, right-hearted, contentious, divisive, etc.

You may also substitute "youth leader" for any kind of leader, such as: president, presidential candidate, teacher, pastor, etc.

You may add to the discussion the ideas of perpetual pizza parties; 36-year old men who still say "sweet" and "dude" while former youth have grown up, married, have kids, and make their old youth leaders look stupid; the strange necessity of male youth leaders to half shave heads or facial hair, or use Kool-Aid to dye their hair as a prize for ridiculous contests such as who can hand out the most tracts or memorize the most Bible verses; the weird things done with Jello; and, in general, the concept of pandering to the lowest common denominator when playing a numbers game.

Obviously, I've got my deep-thinking cap on today.

Because if I have to go to another youth event where the church kids run down the halls of the hotel screaming and throwing ice at 11:30 p.m., I am going to shove my head out the door and cuss a $!@#$&! blue streak -- church kids or not -- about their rotten behavior which is somehow written off as "that's how kids are" when it is, indeed, not how they should or can be.

Because, for some reason, I think 17 and 18-year old "kids" can grow up and behave better since historically they could have been working in coal mines, getting blown up in trenches, or be halfway through their total life expectancy.

Labels: politics, rant, religion

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Joiners.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 12 comments link this post

I'm not a joiner.

I don't join stuff. I don't join groups, organizations, causes, unions, political parties, or even my church¹.

Right now I'm reading a book, written by Marcia Ford, called We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter. I'm not far enough into it to talk about the book, but the idea is that voters who refuse to swear allegiance to a particular political party aren't doing so because we're confused, unable to decide, fickle, wanting to destroy America, or waiting to the last possible moment.

We just aren't joiners.

What happens when you join something?

You have to adhere to a set of guidelines.
You feel like you have a bit of protection, since there's safety and power in numbers.
You often have to send in membership dues, with your money being used however the group sees fit.
You are associated with the entire organization and it's policies, actions, and reputation.
If you want to stay a member, you lose a bit of autonomy of action since you have guidelines to consider.
The longer the group is in existence, the more likely it is that the preservation of the group itself becomes the goal, and not the original purpose or reason that the group was formed in the first place i.e. the focus is lost.
There is pressure to not rock the boat and to maintain the status quo within the group. Solidarity within is necessary for the appearance of strength on the outside.

Is the Republican party more interested in the success of the Republican party, or the success of the people? Is the Democratic party more interested in the success of the Democratic party, or the success of the people? Is the National Education Association more interested in the protection of their members and the power of the entire group or in the actual education of children?

You can substitute just about any group in this verbal equation and get the same result.

These groups have been around a long time. Their focus has shifted to now being the preservation of the organization. And if I join, despite the seeming benefit of being part of a crowd and the feeling that someone has my back, my money -- which, I believe to not be my money but God's money -- is used how it should not be used. (The money I send in for my taxes, and how it is used, is distressing enough.) My voice, even in dissent within the group, is only adding to the volume of the group's general message because I'm still a member. By being a member, I am giving credence to whatever the group stands for, by sheer numbers².

I will continue to avoid joining stuff as best I can. I don't want to find myself in a situation, someday, where the groups and organizations I've joined are demanding that I sacrifice my ideals or conscience for the "greater good" of the organization. I am responsible for my actions, whether they are direct (what I do personally) or indirect (the actions of a group I'm part of). I will have to answer for them someday.

My voice is my own. No one else speaks for me. And even if that means I'm barely or rarely heard, so be it. At least it's my true voice.

¹ I don't see why I have to "officially" join a church and become a "member" when all Christians are "members" of the body of Christ, i.e. "the church." I'm perfectly willing to accept and understand that that means I can't vote and take part in decision making of my local body. I'm not a person that thinks I should receive any of the member benefits without being a member; I'm perfectly fine with understanding there really are "members only" situations, beyond the ugly jackets from the 1980's.

² I understand the dilemma facing teachers and the need for liability insurance and other things the NEA provides. There are other alternatives, I guess, but again, it's still another group to join. Tort reform would be good right about now.

Labels: books, essay, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Vote my conscience?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 6 comments link this post

In this month's ND Assembly of God newsletter, the first two articles are about the imperative importance of Christians needing to get out and vote this election. You know how these articles go; how our nation is at a crossroads, the importance of reclaiming our "true Christian roots", how vital it is to get the right candidate in the office so he or she can appoint the right judge so that judge can make more laws of man that will help preserve our nation in perpetuity as we Christians are supposedly to want...

And oh yeah. Vote your conscience, I was told.

Vote my conscience.

One article contains the following paragraph:

Church, it is critical we take a stand for our nation. [...] The church cannot sit back any longer. It is time to take a stand for righteousness and holiness.

Righteousness and holiness are important, but the way this otherwise noble Christian phrase is included in an article on politics and voting seems to suggest that by merely voting right, I'm doing the hard work of personal holiness and seeking righteousness.

That's a lie.

The rebuttal that comes to mind for this entire religious tendency whenever elections roll around, what I want to say, exhausts me to even think about.

So I'll just say this, and no doubt leave myself open to a lot of comments without really desiring to take up the mantle of debate.

I prefer, as a follower of Christ, to not take a stand for any nation but, instead, for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. How does it sound to say "Church, it is critical we take a stand for the Roman Empire. Church, it is critical we take a stand for Palestine. Church, it is critical we take a stand for Ethiopia."

No.

We do not take a stand for the powers of this earth. Our focus and energy should never be on how high we hoist the American flag, but on spreading the Gospel of Christ. That is what we are to do. We are not here to spread the gospel of our forefathers, the gospel of our buy-buy-buy culture, the gospel of democracy -- preach Christ, and preach him crucified. His Kingdom. His Gospel. That's it.

The church sitting back is a problem, indeed, but it isn't one of sitting back and not taking part in the politics of man. It is, instead, a sitting back and not taking part in the desperation of fallen man. We've traded it off for indignation and righteous anger, missing out on the necessary pain and joy of humbleness and love.

You could dismiss me as merely being cynical about the church and politics, but the admonition to vote my conscience adds to the continually growing (and overwhelming) sense that if I were to really vote -- and act -- on my conscience, I would make a lot of people angry and upset.

I would tell them to take that American flag out of the church; definitely take it off of the altar. I would tell them to stop mixing politics and religion. I would tell them that when it comes election time, the church should say...nothing. I would say that we ought to stop featuring and supporting various celebrities or athletes solely based on their politics. I would say that no politician should ever grace a pulpit when he is functioning as a politician. I would say a lot more but, as I mentioned, it exhausts me.

When you're raised in the church your whole life, like I was, you can do two things:

You can swallow the blue pill and keep picking up voters guides and being worked into and end-times tizzy and sending your dollars to para-church-para-political organizations that insist the country is about to self-destruct and that we should focus on saving the nation instead of souls, and generally sully the Gospel of Christ as a mere political power struggle over who controls a nation instead of a kingdom.

Or, you can swallow the red pill and feel ever-increasing discomfort and misplaced anger and confusion and a feeling of being bound to the point of breaking while trying to find a way to not vote your conscience but merely live with your conscience.

If there were a white-pill analogy, I'd include it here and make it so we ended on a patriotic note.

Because I don't hate my country. I just love Christ so much more.

Labels: church life, politics, religion

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Hillary, Barack, and the Bonspiel.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

This weekend, Grand Forks is hosting the 2008 World Men's Curling Championship. A grand bonspiel. Rocks and brooms.

In about 30 minutes, Barak Obama will be the keynote speaker at the North Dakota Democratic Convention. Later, depending upon when Camp Clinton arrives in this great state, Hillary will speak. The sandwich between these two speakers is ND Sen. Joel Heitkamp*, whose radio show I was listening to while driving down to this crowded black hole known as Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Talk about your traffic.

I've never seen anything like it, even on the Saturdays when half of Manitoba comes down to shop at Target.

The Alerus center, by all accounts I've heard so far, is filled to capacity. This puts the number of people there, from what the radio talking heads figured, at 16,000. All Joel Heitkamp and Heidi Heitkamp and newly nominated Jasper Schneider (for insurance commissioner) could talk about was Obama. A group of women standing by the KFGO table, when the show went to commercial, must have reminded Heitkamp that Hillary had supporters, too. Which Heitkamp pointed out before getting back to Obama.

All in all, I could it was an exciting event for all present at the Alerus Center.

Too bad for Bob, the Disgruntled Democratic Ticket Holder, who phoned the show live from the Columbia Mall Parking lot (one of several places around town designated as parking areas once the Alerus lot quickly filled). He was pretty irate, standing in the parking lot, holding a ticket, having just been informed the free shuttle buses were no longer running because the Alerus was full and they were only going to let the few thousand lined up around it inside before "closing the doors."

"There are hundreds of us here, pretty upset," he said, "because they aren't letting any more people in." He told of how he had driven up from Fargo just to hear Barack.

Ooops. Even planning went awry.

Heitkamp pointed out that this would be rather ugly public relations mark for the N.D. Democratic Party, having made available more tickets than there was room. I remember when President Bush came to Fargo. They told you where you had to go to get the free ticket.

And the next day, they printed the tickets in the newspaper.

Speaking of newspapers, today's Grand Forks Herald had a full page, full color ad supporting Obama and comparing him to Gandhi, King, and Mandela. It also lacked a specific notice on who paid for the ad. I thought you couldn't do that.

Politics.

Regardless, it's a bad, bad day to be in the southwest part of Grand Forks. It's a parking lot.

And also, rocks and brooms.

UPDATE: Rob Port gives his opinion on the ND Democratic event.

----------------------

UPDATE 1: And now, after Dorgan speaks, we get Pomeroy who says that if Clinton had been president during Katrina, like he was when Grand Forks flooded in 1997 and recovered so well, New Orleans wouldn't be in the mess it is today... this, for the introduction not of Clinton, but Obama. Why do they let him out of the back room? And now, Conrad joins in the love-fest. He, at least, threw in a "we're glad to have Sen. Clinton join us this evening...we extend a warm North Dakota greeting for Senator Clinton as well."

There is, incidently, a winter storm warning for the region starting tomorrow.

So, warm North Dakota greetings, candidates.

UPDATE 2: Conrad has invoked Kennedy, who visited North Dakota once upon a time. You can't have a Democratic convention without invoking Kennedy. That's a rule.

UPDATE 3: Sen. Conrad just endorsed Obama. The applause was noticeably less than earlier responses to Conrad's comments. Applause throughout this next bit was noticeably spotty. Conrad gives his reasons:

1. Obama asked him to support him.
2. Obama never supported the war in Iraq.
3. He got it right in 2002 by not supporting the war, and he will find the right way to bring the troops home.
4. Not enough experience not valid. He had the experience to get that judgment right.
5. It doesn't matter if he hasn't served "long enough" in Washington. (Lame joke about Dick Cheney, the favored whipping boy, follows, with the point being... Oh. Now he invoked Abe Lincoln's inexperience in Congress before being president. This is rich, coming from Conrad, who has been in Washington for an eon.)
6. We need someone to get results and move us forward.
7. Obama relates to everyone in the U.S.
8. Obama has Midwestern values. He has good values.

Obama takes the stage to the sounds of U2. Sigh. People are still trying to get inside the building.
And now, I'm off to the medical lab, doing my bit to keep healthcare affordable.

* I wrote about Heitkamp in action in this post.

Labels: north dakota, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I only wanted the weather forecast.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I fly out with the rest of the first group this weekend, for the warmer climate of Central America and my friends in Nicaragua. This morning, while standing around the counter in the kitchen at church, waiting for Sunday School to start, mixing up a cup of cocoa, I asked Michael if there were any storms in the forecast.

"I just want to make sure there's no problems with flying and stuff," I added.

Within about eight words, Michael turned the benign conversation of weather into a political topic.

"...and then you have Al Gore trying to predict years in the future when we can't even predict the weather for the upcoming week," he said. Another fellow from church who was standing there, laughed. There was some more talk about global warming, crazies, climate change, protesters in snow storms, and the equator.

I rolled my eyes.

"How'd we get on politics? I just wanted to know the weather forecast for the weekend."

It struck me as funny, the brief but direct derailment of the conversation. Weather, the ultimate chit-chat topic of no offensive nature. Politics, one of the topics you avoid in light conversation (along with age, weight, and religion). We were already in a church, so the religion was covered.

Next time: age and weight.

For instance, Al Gore is chubby. There's a tie-in.

I'm already working on my eye-rolling technique.

Labels: church life, friends, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Ed Schafer could possibly be able to celebrate secretaries day next year!

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

So former North Dakota governor Ed Schafer might be the new Secretary of Agriculture.

I've met Ed a couple of times. I'm sure he doesn't recall. Typical.

The last time I saw him was in Webster, North Dakota at a fundraiser for my district's Republican Representatives and Senator. I sat in the audience and took notes on his little speech, since that is my habit. I also drew a little cartoon of him and Nancy. And then became sidetracked and stopped taking notes on the speech, but on just watching the two of them. This is not uncommon behavior. During a technology conference, when I found myself sitting next to Dorgan, Pomeroy and Conrad, I drew unflattering cartoons of them and their hair.

This has nothing to do with anything.

Schafer looks a little like Ted Turner.

That also has nothing to do with anything.

The previous paragraphs, in their entirety, are why I am not a political blogger.

More articles here.

Labels: current events, north dakota, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Linkage: Dakota Politics.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

::I'm not really into politics anymore. It just ended up being frustrating and rarely capable of doing anything beyond enraging me with crisis-mongering. I quit following politics on any level, and focused on other ways to interpret or take part in current events. I still receive political emails, however, and lately I've received a handful of emails on a new website called Dakota Politics. I thought I'd alert you to its presence, in case you were interested. I'm including the press release below. I am more interested in local-level politics than any other kind.::

BISMARCK, N.D. -- Reiten Television and Midkota Solutions in a joint partnership officially launch this week a new and one-of-a-kind web site in North Dakota focused on North Dakota Politics and Government. The new website, part of the KXNet.com group of web sites, features an unprecedented volume of information on elected officials (down to the county and city levels), upcoming races, legislative bills, roll call votes, campaign finance data, news, opinion and blogs. (see below for example links)

DakotaPolitics.com has been featured on the Joel Heitkamp Show and is providing full coverage of every North Dakota race in 2008.

One of the unique features of the site is the database of legislative bills and roll call votes. DakotaPolitics.com has gathered every bill introduced since 2001 and have tabulated over 500,000 individual roll call votes. This data provides, for the first time, a full and easy to read view of each bill, including who voted for/against it, and additional demographic statistics based on legislative districts.

For instance, users can look at a bill and determine geographically how the votes were cast (East vs West), which party (Democratic/Republican) supported the bill, plus additional data such as votes based on a district’s population data (e.g. Rural vs Non Rural, High Poverty Rates vs Low Poverty Rates, etc.)

The web site also features profiles on every current elected official in the state as well as those that have announced, are exploring or are rumored to be running for an office.

DakotaPolitics.com will also be tightly integrated into KXNet.com featuring news and video from KXMB / KXMC. In addition, National Coverage (News / Video) provided by CBSNews.com Politics.

"This web site is for the voter", says Eric Kubischta of Midkota Solutions. "As a voter, you can find the issues that matter to you most, and then determine, at a glance, whether or not the legislators from your district, or candidates for statewide office, support your position."

To make this easier, DakotaPolitics.com has grouped all of the bills and issues into a variety of categories allowing you quicker access to the legislation you are interested in. Whether it is Taxes, Business Regulations, Crime, Education, Energy, Farming, Health, Jobs, Welfare, Social Issues (Abortion, Marriage, etc.), you have the ability to drill down directly to the bills related to each topic.

Election Data is available for all elections back to 2000, and we provide interesting statistics such as how particular counties tend to vote and what is the trend over the past 8 years.

DakotaPolitics.com also brings campaign finance data for both statewide candidates and Federal candidates allowing you to follow each individual contribution.

Links:

------------------------------------------------

Dakota Politics has detailed instructions for when journalists or bloggers -- any media outlet -- cite them. That can be found here.

Labels: north dakota, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

What's your baby?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 5 comments link this post

I was in Bismarck this past weekend to visit my friend, who works in the capitol. I had the chance to get out of my khakis and Van's and dress like an adult to wander the halls and sit on the Senate floor.

I had the chance to run into Rep. Kathy Hawken, though we weren't officially introduced. She looks much different in real life than in her photo. Remember Rep. Hawken, from this post? She was upset over a prayer that explicitly did not support abortion.

When I "met" Hawken at the capitol, I was standing in the Legislative Council office, waiting my turn to get information on something. She flew in the door, my turn took a back seat to her, and she began speaking with the woman behind the desk. I stepped back and let her have her moment.

"So how'd it go today?" the woman behind the desk asked.

"Well, I lost one this morning. I just don't understand why people --" and then Hawken went off on a wee tirade.

I stood there, again wondering why it was that people will talk and say anything in front of a person who just happens to be silent and perhaps not noticeable, not realizing that unless I am deaf, I can hear what you are saying.

The added bonus here being that I also blog.

She expressed her irritation for "those people" that voted down the bill, drumming her French-manicured fingernails on the table, her square purple-framed glasses slipping down her nose.

The bill, SB2181 was one of Hawken's babies; it was a bill she had evidently invested some time in and helped to introduce. It allowed minors to get prenatal care without parental consent. SB2181 flew unanimously through the Senate, and stopped with a split vote in the House. There were two members absent* the day that I was there, and they did not take part in the vote. I showed up just after the House session was done and spent some time talking with a couple of representatives about it.

The Fargo Forum talked about the bill and had an interesting paragraph that showed how much power would have been given to medical providers with this bill:

The most recent version of the bill would have allowed minors to receive pregnancy testing, two prenatal visits and pain management related to pregnancy without parental consent.

If a minor asked for confidential services, the bill said medical providers would need to encourage the minor to involve her parents.

Parents could be informed of the services if medical providers – in their judgment – believe failure to do so would jeopardize the health of the minor or the baby, if hospitalization is needed or if it would benefit the health of the minor or baby, the bill said.

What kind of Pollyanna thinks that any given medical provider on any given day is going to always always always provide great advice? I've visited my share of doctors and nurses who didn't give a rat's a** about me and just shuffled me through the system. The key phrase here being "in their judgement." Another fine and useless word is "encourage." What kind of legal weight does that hold? Will the word "encourage" ever find usefulness in any realm?

According to BismarckDems, the 46 representatives in the House that voted the bill down were allotted the following description:

I thought the arguments made by medical professionals were pretty compelling The supposedly "pro-family" fundamentalist crackpots tried to turn this bill into a debate over whether it was appropriate to hand out coupons for free abortions at the junior high schools. They completely missed the point on this bill.

The medical professionals also gave pretty compelling testimony on another bill so that bottle rockets are probably going to be banned in North Dakota. Compelling testimony is compelling. The phrasing I'm reading in various blogs and news articles in regards to the defeat is that it was "incredibly disappointing" and then a jab is made about how it now forces girls to run to some back-room abortionist, complete with coat hangers. Or that the fundy crackpots just see everything as about abortion.

All of those arguments usually come after the supporters swear up and down it isn't about abortion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- I think the greater question is what it does to parents and families.

The representatives who voted this bill down were not fundamentalist crackpots. However, after listening to Hawken harangue and carry on in that office and then hear her talking to people in the capitol two other times over the course of the afternoon bemoaning the failure of the bill and refer to "those people" repeatedly, I'm thinking the crackpot term ought to be turned another direction. I'm thinking there are all kinds of fundamentalists; it just depends on what your fundamentals are.

I find it interesting that there are many examples used as to why this bill was needed, usually veering to extremes such as examples of girls from bad homes not having parental support or babies being born with problems because of no early prenatal care. It's a curiosity to me, how people who get irritated with parents who are always trying to legislate strict controls over television content throw the "you have the power to turn the TV off" argument.**

But then, in glorious moments of legislative wisdom like this, we want to take the option away from parents that would allow them to know when their young daughter is going to get prenatal care. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Whether it's about abortion or not isn't even the point. It is just one more step in taking away the ability of parents to know what is going on in their child's life. Do you really want there to be state laws that keep parents in the dark? Bracket it in whatever do-good language you like, whatever real or faux concern card you're playing; the point is, it keeps parents out of a loop they should be in on until some random outside medical professional, in his or her judgment, "encourages" your daughter to tell you.

Being a parent is getting to be impossible: you're blamed for not being involved in your child's life enough in regards to school activities and education, told that you are responsible for making sure your child doesn't see or hear television or music that you don't want them to, told to talk to your kids about drugs and alcohol and stay very much on top of whether they are abusing those substances...but you don't have a say about prenatal care for your daughter if/until she wants you to?

Stupid.

This bill, like the potato bill I talked about earlier, and just like about 90 percent of bills and laws that come out of any governing body, was pure and simple, a doorway. These bills are the proverbial can of worms, the actual slippery slope, the start of the ball rolling down the hill. There needs to be fewer laws, not more.

The pro-choice concept of "keep your laws off of my body" can be conversely used to say "keep your laws off of my family." I don't want laws telling me what I can and can't watch, and I don't want laws that, if I had kids, would let them run off to the doctor without me knowing.

If SB2181 was an important bill, if it was your baby, it looks like it got aborted right there in the North Dakota House. Kind of sucks, then, doesn't it?

Links:

Further thoughts: You can find a lot of non-sense at the capitol. Here are a couple of quotes from the Fargo Forum article that aren't non-sense (emphasis added is mine):

Rep. Chuck Damschen, R-Hampden, urged defeat.

“I’ve never seen an issue that’s hard to address get easier by putting it off,” he said. “I think that’s what this bill does. It postpones the news, and it drives a wedge between the daughter and the parents.”

Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, said lawmakers have debated about banning teens from getting tattoos and tanning without parental consent.

“We don’t even trust them in a school to be able to pick the right kind of pop to drink, so we wanted to take those pop machines out,” he said.

We'll save the pop machine argument for another day.

*There were two representatives gone during the vote, both Republicans, who indicated they would not have voted for the bill (if my understanding is correct). One of these representatives I know; I went to school with his daughter. The bill would have likely been defeated 48-46 instead of a 46-46 vote.

**The parents have the option of turning the TV off. I agree. I further postulate getting rid of the TV altogether.

Labels: current events, north dakota, politics

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Filters for your safety and convenience.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

If it weren't for our well water, I wouldn't have such bizarrely orange colored hair. I eschew filters. Bring on the iron and rust. Our water comes unfiltered.

Filters are supposed to make things safe. This is done by changing the original. You have to want the original or want the safe version.

All this talk of filters brings me to the topic at hand: filters.

Filters include books, speeches, talks, magazines, the passage of time, culture, television and news reports, lectures, structured education -- anything that pulls together material across a broad range and then transmits it to someone else. Filters gather original material, filter it according to what is deemed necessary to know for the purpose or audience, and then let it through. Very few things are really raw; nearly all information we receive, unless we are standing in the middle of all things or holding onto source documents, is filtered. Everything is filtered, meaning I never really understand everything fully. There's always something that didn't make it past the filter.

But rather than go that direction, here's a couple of quick examples on a simple level that I observed recently.

Religion
We have this interview by Erwin McManus. Then we have this filtered version, sanitized for a particular audience's protection, by Ken Silva. Then we have the high irritation of people trying to point out to others that perhaps they don't need the Silva 2000^TM filter.

If you want to know what Erwin McManus said, go read the original source.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that commentaries on original material aren't valuable, because they are. Just as verbal conversations about books and philosophies are valuable -- Starbucks probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for this -- the written versions of an author's (i.e. "filter's") inward conversation and thoughts are as equally valuable. I appreciate the value of a filter as a kind of introduction to something I may not have know a thing about. Authors are filters, people who recommend something are filters. It all comes, filtered through them.

All good. Get a taste. Think you might be interested in something unfiltered? Great. Go to the source.

That is, unless your "filter" is turning more and more into a crackpot. Not all filters are created equal, and what gets spit out is only as good as the filter, not fully up to the original material. A good filter should definitely not change the taste or essence of the original material.

Evaluate your filter. Is it time to change it? For all the love and ease of a filter that culls important information together in a handy Reader's Digest manner, have you tried the real thing enough times to know when your filter has gone bad?

Media
The funny thing about televised news coverage is that people forget the obvious. It isn't news that you are watching, but what happened in front of the camera while the camera was on. The filter of the camera is notorious in that it would seem to capture a scene accurately while, at the same time, altering the scene by the mere fact that the camera is rolling.

Basically, you're not actually watching the news, you're watching someone:

tell you about the news
tell you what they think the news is

A great revelation of this occurred for me while I was in Bismarck this past weekend. As I sat on the Senate floor, Sen. Heitkamp (whose radio program I always enjoyed) was silent. He kind of rocked back and forth in his chair, listened to discussion, said a few "yeas" when a vote was needed, looked around, talked on his cell phone -- he was like anyone else. Then two local TV camera crews came in to film the Senate discussion and subsequent voting on an amendment for a bill that allowed citizens to kill in self-defense.

Glory be, Heitkamp stood up and gave a knock-down speech that would warm any heart. The two camera guys were in the perfect position and got a great sound bite. All Heitkamp needed was to wave a flag and pass out apple pie and I would have probably passed out in patriotic bliss.

Then the cameras went away. Heitkamp didn't say anything more. I watched him return to his casual posture in the back row. I watched him a lot, actually. In fact, at the end of the day when "do not concur" committee assignments were being handed out, I watched as Heitkamp screwed his face up in hilarious irritation each time he was assigned to a committee. Just watching him change according to the situation kind of made me appreciate him more.

"Heitkamp always gets up and says a speech when there are cameras around," one of the senators told me. "I think he wants to be governor someday."

No camera. No speech. Just constipated facial expressions during committee assignments.

Don't even get me started on the concept of the editing room, which is a filter for the filter. If you saw it on TV, it doesn't mean anything. Just because the camera crew always interviews the red necks after a tornado roars through a trailer park doesn't mean there weren't people around who could string together a few sentences without wearing a wife-beater.

Summation: We must have filters because there's too much out there in every subject for every single person to process all the time. By merely living in a culture and a time period removed from a subject, we are filtered. The point isn't to rage against the filter, but rather, to be aware it is there and question what's coming through it periodically.

I'm not sure which is worse, filters meant for safety or filters meant for convenience. Sometimes I really just want a sieve or colander.

Labels: essay, north dakota, politics, religion

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The trickster's journey.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I'd just seen clever maneuvering on the floor of the North Dakota Senate in which the amendment of a bill (HB1086) was tabled without the senators realizing that their action would table the bill itself. During a break, all of the senators were talking about this clever bit of parliamentary procedure and how it hadn't been used for ten years or more.

Somehow, the bill was brought back "off the table" later in the afternoon and discussed before being voted down, and then tabled it for good to kill it for the current session, since there had been one senator gone that day. The senators didn't want to see it brought back. The bill had to do with making participation in a commodities check-off program, for potatoes, mandatory.

I didn't like the bill.

Voting with their money in regards to whether or not the farmers wanted the commodity marketing/research organization to make changes was the the only vote these minority producers would have in this case, a minority that provided the majority of the funds. What was happening was the red potato market was generating about $114,000 and getting most of the research dollars. The russet potato market, with a minority of producers at only about 3 percent, was generating $540,000 and getting very little research dollars. These minority producers were asking for the refund and when they got their money back, it was severely hurting the marketing group.

Making participation mandatory would remove any method for these producers to get the organization to focus on their variety of crop instead of the minority interests. Pulling their money out of the program was an effective way of telling the organization that they didn't like what they were doing.

Discussion was heated, with a number of senators pointing out that if this had been about wheat instead of potatoes, it would have been dead in January. There was no way a mandatory check-off would have even been considered. A few pointed out that if the energy put into bringing this bill to the legislature had been poured into working out the grievances of the organization, some good might have emerged. As it was, the majority producers were trying to force the minority to go along with them; the minority of the group pays the majority of the funds, and their only vote are their dollars. Oddly, though, North Dakota is the only potato-producing state that does not make the check-off mandatory.

The senator I was sitting with had explained the details and background of the bill well. I got the impression he didn't think it was something that should be in the legislature, and that the organization should be working this out on their own without opening a can of worms that might lead to a rush for mandatory participation in all the other check-off programs.

"How do you think I should vote?" he asked me.

"No, of course," I said, having heard him talk about it and summarized his take on the matter. And then I watched as he voted yes. The bill was defeated 25 to 21.

I admit to confusion.

"The constituents in my district would want me to vote yes on this matter, even though I think it's a bad piece of legislation," he explained, no doubt noting the strange look on my face. "It works out, because there are enough no votes and it didn't pass, but I still was able to vote as my constituents would want me to."

I had a blank look on my face.

"Sometimes politics is like a kind of trade," he said.

I didn't even think the guy was wrong because I could see his point. How many times do people holler about how so-and-so isn't representing them well in the government? A representative form of government, then, demands that those serving as a representative be dishonest with themselves at some point. They are there to represent and not be mavericks.

That's my surprisingly late take on the political realities of a representative form of government. I don't know how I missed that in all this time.

The politician's journey is less a Hero's Journey, and more of a trickster's journey. The gamesmanship, the voting as you should and not as you want -- it all seems like a trick on something. Maybe a trick on honesty.

I could not do it. I would have to vote as I believed to be right or wrong, and not according to how the people back in my district would want me to vote.

I would be a very bad politician.

Labels: north dakota, politics

SECTIONS

About

Contact

Breaking News!

Events

Press

Sales & Specials

TODAYS HEADLINES

BLOGROLL

Everywhere a soap box, yet always so dirty.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Sarah Palin. Wow.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The right backdrop.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Obamageddon.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Linkage: The 2008 election, summed up.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Follow the leader.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Joiners.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Vote my conscience?

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Hillary, Barack, and the Bonspiel.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I only wanted the weather forecast.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Ed Schafer could possibly be able to celebrate secretaries day next year!

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Linkage: Dakota Politics.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

What's your baby?

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Filters for your safety and convenience.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The trickster's journey.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.