bkdelong

I was listening to NPR's Day to Day and heard a fabulous story about people coming from various senate.gov and house.gov IP addresses and editing varying Representative and Senator's entries on Wikipedia - mostly cleaning up "bad" stuff and adding glowing spin. I'm embarassed to say the investigation was kicked off by MA Representative Marty Meehan's entry, (my Rep is John Tierney who rocks), but it's exposed an incredible amount of such editing through the Legislative branch. Apparently Wikipedia has banned the IP range but that won't stop people going through a proxy. However, I think that that people will be watching the entries more closely.

I came across this article in USA Today about Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley requesting all sorts of information from the Red Cross about finances, board minutes etc. I can understand that - Congress has full oversight over the Red Cross due to it being the official charity chartered to respond to disasters.

However what really upsets me is statements by two Representatives - Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Republican Jim McCrery of Louisiana saying that the government should reconsider that charter. OK - I understand. These are two elected officials of states that were absolutely devastated. But the Red Cross was way more prepared than most.

As of 4:30pm ET on August 25th, while Katrina was still 25 miles off Ft. Lauderdale just a few hours from landfall, they had 24 shelters opened in 4 counties already housing 334 people with 16 more shelters on standby. Three days later just prior to landfall, (about noon on 8/28), they had 78 shelters open with 58 on standby housing 1084 people. They worked with the Southern Baptists and already had sites set for 25 kitchens that were waiting on standby to feed over 500,000 per day - and requested 10 more. They had deployed 885 volunteers/staff and were recruiting and training 1900 in the next 3 days. That was BEFORE landfall! (Note: I'm pulling these stats of Red Cross Disaster Operations Summary Reports - I looked but the ones I am referencing are not publicly available on the Web.)

After participating in some of the more advanced Red Cross courses including Mass Casualty Disaster (PDF) and, this past weekend, the two-day Collaborating to Ensure Effective Service Delivery, (formerly the Liaison I/II courses if I understand it right), the Red Cross is as prepared as they can be. Every chapter has Disaster Response Plans, the national organization has policies and documents for every role one would be expected to play....I honestly do not believe any other organization could be more prepared for disasters.

Looking back at the 2005 hurricane season, the Red Cross responded to Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Tammy and Wilma - so many people don't realize that the organization is still doing casework on hurricanes from 2004, September 11th in addition to having to recruit, train and dispatch volunteers to all of these on-site locations. It's just enormous. There are hundreds of not-for-profits helping with the aftermath and response. Don't get me wrong - the Red Cross is not the only organization for disaster services and relief. In fact, we have Statements and Memos of Understanding with about 100 national organizations that perform various services. However I don't think any one of those organizations can take up the mantle to do what the Red Cross does for the US.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around my thoughts on the issue but the more I become involved, the more I see just how much the Red Cross does that no one realizes.

I was watching a discussion of gay marriage on the WTA Talk list and decided to add some input of my own. I've never really gone beyond saying I support gay marriage but there's more to it. Though, keep in mind this has a bit of a transhumanist bent:

First off there's the matter of semantics. I honestly believe that "marriage" should be returned to the church and that government entities should use "Civil Unions" to distinguish the rights and responsibilities given to couples by law. That way, "gay marriage" becomes an issue of the church and religion. If a gay couple wants to get "married" in the church then focus and pressure needs to be put on the religious body governing the church. However civil unions are merely a set of rights and responsibilities and should be gender-blind.

Anyway, who is to say that men will never be able to carry a child to term? Lesbian couples can have a baby together through artificial insemination - the one carrying the child is implanted with a fertilized egg of the other partner. Who is to say we can't condition the male body to carry an embryo in his abdomen until term at which point he has a C-Section?

Of course, who knows - some day we may be able to create sperm and eggs on our own, implanted with the appropriate genetic code from both couples desiring to have a baby - ie two men can have a baby that is both biologically theirs.

I think it's often overlooked that, until the industrial revolution and even shortly after it began, the reason for procreation was a matter of survival: You needed additional bodies to help run the farm or to get a job to support the family. In today's marketplace, a single person can get by perfectly on their own without familial infrastructure.

Nowadays, having children in many places around the US is simply a means for a couple to further experience and solidify their love and relationship - by creating and raising a biological joining of the two of them.

So the focus changes from raising a child to ensure the family's survival to making the choice to raise and mentor a new life in the world.

I find this amusing to read, being the father of an 18mo old as it sounds so cold and impersonal. But for the most part the above description describes why my wife and I chose to have a baby together.

WTA Executive Director Dr. James Hughes pointed out the similarities to my thoughts in a 2003 piece he authored.

I discussed my thoughts a bit when gay marriage was becoming such a large issue in Massachusetts but I believe it's a bit more complicated than my "solution". I haven't really researched it myself but I believe the term marriage appears quite a lot in government policy to the point where some scrubbing would need to happen in order for my ideas to take place. But I truly believe we need to further separate church and state and remove this religious definition of marriage with a more secular, public policy law regarding civil unions. Religion has no right to be the basis for determining who does and does not have rights in our country.