“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

- George Orwell

Thursday night I was giving Uncle Ben a ride home to the monastery after a fairly successful trivia challenge evening at Keegan's (one first-place victory and a finish just one point out of the money in another). We drove past a night club that had a huge line of young people waiting to get inside. Suddenly, we were assaulted.

Standing in one group was a blonde Valkyrie with her back toward us. Ben estimated her at 240 pounds. She was "clad" in a plaid mini-skirt that might have been modest on Renee Zellweger, but was more of a sash on Brunhilde as it did an inadequate job of covering her thong - or anything else. Ben was thinking cottage cheese, but I think a more apt description would be a topographical map of the, er, moon.

Now I know the proper response to such an exposure is to look away, and believe me, we did. We looked away so firmly that I think my car almost jumped the curb and hit a streetlight. I also know there are many forms of beauty and appreciation for such (when in the proper context), and I try hard to refrain from making judgments about people based on their physical appearance (comely or otherwise), but such a deliberate "in-your-face" display suggests a certain aggressive, anti-social attitude. I don't know what she was thinking, but I don't imagine it was nice.

I'm telling you, the streets aren't safe.

Even though we were born on the same day in the same year, I don't have much interest in Alec Baldwin or his views. Hence I enjoyed a mild schadenfreude last Friday when I saw headlines about him leaving an angry voicemail for his 11-year-old daughter. It was kind of funny for him to find himself the target of all the Tsk-Tsking for a change.

I didn't have time to read the articles, though, so it wasn't until I was driving home and listening to Jason Lewis that I heard the recording of the conversation as well as the background that explained that Baldwin was upset because his daughter, who doesn't live with him, had developed the habit of not answering her phone for the pre-appointed phone calls that are part of his visitation rights and his efforts to parent from across the country. Given that understanding, I was more sympathetic to him as I listened to the tape and heard him venting the frustration, hurt and humiliation he was experiencing because of his daughter's behavior and thought that it didn't reflect well on her that she'd act that way and then even turn over the recording to the media.

"That's a child," I thought, "with issues." Not the least of which is being called a "selfish pig" by your father. I couldn't help but think about tape and the relationship after I got out of the car and it suddenly occurred to me that Baldwin's outburst, while initiated by his daughter, was all about how she had made him feel, what he had to put up, what efforts he had made and what he wasn't going to put with. In short, it was all about HIM, and I thought that selfishness perhaps runs in the family.

Not that my children haven't been the catalysts for some of my own tirades and that my own rants are known for their flawless reason and selfless eloquence, but it occurred to me that the things that have most upset me (and let me emphasize that there have been very few of these occasions) are times when they were inconsiderate of others or short-sighted in their actions. My concerns then were not in the offense that they may have done to me or to others (even if inadvertent) but in terms of the quality of their character and the potentially negative consequences they could experience as they grew up if their offense wasn't recognized and dealt with. Part and parcel of that has been to inculcate in them a second-nature awareness of how their words and actions affect others and how empathy is better than sympathy.

Last week the Fundamentals in Film class that I teach to teenage boys watched To Kill a Mockingbird, and our discussion during and after the movie was about courage, commitment to do what is right and the part that prejudice and preconceptions plays even today in events such as the Duke lacrosse case or even the shootings at Virginia Tech. Perhaps the greatest lesson, however, is Atticus' belief that you can't really know a person until you've walked around in his skin for a little bit; i.e., put yourself in that person's shoes and go for a little walk. Sociopaths like the Virginia Tech shooter (I won't even use his name, given his desire for notoriety) are completely wrapped up in themselves and their feelings and have not a whit's worth of concern or empathy for their victims and their families. Mass murder takes it to the extreme, but our own lack of awareness can also be devastating to others and (to be selfish) a source of great regret for ourselves later.

Empathy doesn't automatically excuse or justify another's actions, especially if they are heinous, but it can help us to understand them and to ponder our own shortcomings in a beneficial, not abusive, way. I empathize with Alec Baldwin, but I hope this experience and lesson (painful as it may be) ultimately has a positive effect on him and his daughter.

Miss America 1944, Venus Ramey, used her .38 pistol to shoot out the tires of a would-be thief trying to steal equipment from her Kentucky farm last week — even though she had to steady herself in her walker while doing so.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey was the first red-head to win the Miss America title and sold war bonds during World War II, and even had her image painted on the side of a B-17.

I think it might be interesting if Sen. Harry Reid were to explain himself to Ms. Ramey.

A few days ago I put up a post referencing how safe our lives have become and suggesting that we had to go looking to find things to kill us, and usually found them embedded in the things we've used to make our lives easier.

Our desire for easy and convenient kills us with useless calories, toxic drink dispensers and mutated nutrients while we celebrate progress and our exceeding cleverness. Why, to do without these fruits would be regressive, even primitive.

Morally we also like things easier, and we don't like to put the hard work in to examine ourselves and cut the slack out of our lives, thinking that as long as everything "looks good" then we must not be too bad. We certainly don't want to be bothered with the work of taking a stand in the hopes of changing others (unless we're one of those who can't wait to change everyone but themselves), so we watch that video, play that game, revel in those lyrics. Why, to do without our rationalizations, to be willing to say something is actually evil, would be regressive, even primitive.

It's far easier to act as if the "science" of our morality has all been settled, that evil has been driven from our land along with the wild, man-eating animals, leaving us this convenient, easy life where we assume everyone's just naturally got it all figured out and evil is merely a quaint concept to be manipulated for power and ratings, or to describe how someone else votes. Or else a venial sin is blown up into a huge paper dragon so that certain warriors can similarly puff themselves up to do battle with it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And then someone shoots up a school, pours acid on a playground slide or opportunistically twists another person's name and reputation for personal gain on a national stage and we gape in horror and wonder how anyone could do such a thing even though it happens in one form or another every day. Meanwhile, the TV networks that won't show a fan running out onto an athletic field because it gives the yahoo the exposure he's looking for and only encourages others, trip all over each other to broadcast the addled rantings of a self-absorbed maniac.

A friend who is a carpenter recently opined, after touring several million-dollar homes, how disappointing the workmanship was in these beautiful and expensive abodes. Things certainly looked nice, but to a practiced eye the mistakes and cover-ups for the mistakes were jarring. Something might look right, but if it's not properly squared up it's eventually going to sag and crumble, no matter how expensive and modern it is.

I can't imagine the architect is too pleased.

Now even a half-dressed Paris Hilton, carrying a bottle of Grey Goose and a chihuahua while eating a ham sandwich will be able to get a cab at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

In a rare display of Minnesota resolve the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) voted unanimously to take a hard line in imposing stricter sanctions on cab drivers who refuse to accept fares from passengers carrying alcohol. While the policy calls for penalties for any driver refusing a fare unless the would-be passenger is drunk or disorderly, it was enacted in response to some Muslim cabbies refusing, on the basis of their religious beliefs, to transport passengers carrying alcohol. A first offense calls for a 30-day license suspension and a second requires a two-year suspension (the previous penalty was that the driver had to go back to the end of the cab-line, which might be as much as a two-hour wait for another fare).

While this policy was written primarily in response to refusals to transport passengers carrying booze —more than 4800 "refusals of service" in the last five years — there have also been incidences of Muslim cabdrivers refusing passengers with service dogs (service pigs would be right out). I think it's likely the MAC was also concerned that if it permitted refusals-of-service based on alcohol and dogs that it might next be dealing with religious refusals to transport unescorted women, Jewish passengers and arbitragers dealing in pork-belly futures. Therefore the line was drawn, and it's a hard one.

It's not clear to me whether the MAC has the authority to keep a cabbie from plying his trade anywhere other than at the airport. There is also the usual talk about this decision being challenged to the Minnesota Supreme Court on the basis of the MAC, being a government organization, is required to make "reasonable accomodation" for religious beliefs. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they have to take it to court first before a case can go to the Supreme Court. Also, the MAC is a customer, not an employer, of the cabbies; don't know if that makes a difference.

If it goes to court it might make for an interesting ruling that could affect policies such as other governmental organizations (e.g., cities) being able to set terms for prospective vendors on the paying a "livable" wage or having a certain percentage of minority employees and/or owners in order to receive contracts.

As I've written before, I have a certain admiration for people sticking to their religious principles on the job, especially if they are prepared to pay the "market price" for their choices. Ultimately if a cabdriver perceives permitting alcohol inside his cab to be on par with, say, selling booze then it might be time to prayerfully consider another career.

When I walk outside to get the newspaper in the morning I never think to check first for skulking lions or packs of wolves. I drive to work with my seatbelt fastened and six airbags surrounding me and don't bother to keep an eye out for bandits. I go to work in a building that's never had a cave-in or been attacked by a whale and doesn't even keep a tally board of how many accident-free days in a row have gone by. I come home to a delicious dinner that I didn't have to risk life and limb in acquiring (and we haven't bought any hydrogenated foods in years). If one of my children develops a cough I don't worry that it's the plague. My government hasn't threatened to drag me away in the middle of the night for years.

Yep, our lives are pretty easy and danger free these days — or so I thought. I mentioned to my wife the other day that I had a case of bottled water in the trunk of my car if she needed any. She said I should be careful not to let the bottles get too warm because she heard they'll release a toxic gas into the water. A few weeks ago I was eating with a group of folks and the discussion was about how cooking food in a microwave alters the molecules and destroys its nutritional value. This is supposedly especially true for vegetables, which I generally avoid anyway, but it makes me wonder what would happen if I microwaved a Twinkie. It seems to me as if the only way to go is up in that case, nutrition-wise.

Now when I was growing up I often heard that if you sat too close to that new-fangled color television set it would make you sterile (today they say that about laptops). I sat close to the TV anyway and it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Of course, as a kid, I also drank out of the garden hose all the time — something else they now say you're not supposed to do. The TV didn't stop me from having children, and the laptop came along too late to impact our family planning (bringing one home all the time, however, does seem to have an affect on my sex life).

It's hard to tell just what to take seriously anymore. I suppose anything that makes our life easier has just naturally got to have some insidious, toxic trade off (if only Eve had paid attention to the warning label on that apple!). I did some on-line research on the always reliable internet and there might be something to the microwaving thing (here, here and here, — oh, and don't use one of these to dry your pet after a bath) and to the toxic water bottles, though there appears to be more concern about reusing bottles than the amount of PET that might leach into your premium H20. Still, it's got to be safer than drinking tap water, right? Maybe not, unless of course you're trying to avoid the harmful effects of fluoridation.
It's enough to make you want to get your water direct from a clear mountain stream, as long as you don't think to much about what all those fish and ducks have been doing in it.

I don't know, I suppose the next thing they're going to tell us is that watching television makes you fat.

There was so much in the news this week to comment on and so little time to do it. Let me see if I can sum up:

People were shocked when a Shock Jock called Anna Nicole Smith "an empty-headed 'ho'," but not as shocked as they were when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson couldn't find a microphone or a camera in order to apologize for maligning the Duke lacrosse players, who were conclusively proven to not have been the fathers of little Danielynn.

So, did anything important happen in the world that I might have missed?