Good Legislation/Bad Legislation

Two articles caught my attention this morning. One was a guest opinion in the Spokesman entitled We'll live to regret suicide initiative ; the other was a poll in the magazine section regarding whether the government should pass laws to fight obesity.

As to the first, Washington state has recently legalized physician assisted suicide similar to what has long been legal in Oregon. I prefer calling it death with dignity. It eases the more tawdry implications, while being a better indicator of it's true purpose.

The writer feels this is the first step toward a convenient way of killing one another when death may or may not be imminent even though the medical opinion may so state. He uses himself as a case in point. He had been given the six month prognosis back in November 2005 and has lived to write this column.

As I read his thoughts I was thinking of the power Hub and I are holding over our dog's life. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have to make the decision if it's time to let him go. We've done it five times before and it never gets any easier. You ask yourself if you have the right to make that decision and you agonize over the timing.

One of the writer's points is that this legislation will eliminate trusting in God to determine the course. I have some problems with that thinking. I will concede, not having read the legislation, that he may have some valid points in pointing out weaknesses in the details. I look at the issue from a broader perspective.

First, just because the legislation is in place does not mean anyone has to utilize it. If you'd rather take your chances, go for it!
On the other hand, when one is in such severe discomfort that it's being considered in the first place, I, at least would like to have the option.

Those of you who are long time readers know I had a friend in Oregon who exercised the option. She was not weak, nor was she coerced. She was just plain exhausted from fighting constant pain and no hope. What course would God have chosen for her? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Who's to know. She was at peace with her decision as was her family. Those of us left behind are the ones who struggled with it. The question foremost in our minds was could we make that decision for ourselves. There may well come a point where many of us might want that option.

We ask the same about Bacchus. We've already decided we will not take extraordinary measures again. We did it at the onset to keep him with us awhile longer, but he's an old dog who has had a good life. We'd choose not to have him suffer more extreme trauma for our own selfish desire to have him with us for what we know will be a short time at best.

If we can do this for a beloved pet, why not people? I'd like to think, and I believe statistics from Oregon would bear me out, abuse has been rare if at all. Fearing all the "what ifs" does little but upset for unsubstantiated reasons.

This ties into the point, too, that we are dealing with adult human beings here who should be allowed to make decisions for themselves to leave this world with dignity and without pain.

It also ties into the poll about government legislating the fight against obesity. While death with dignity, with the proper, enforceable safeguards in place, is good legislation, trying to legislate obesity is big brotherism several steps too far. Again, we're dealing with human beings here. We may make the wrong choices for ourselves but to legislate removal of that right could lead to an expansion of government in our lives that would strip us of everything that makes living livable.

The worst part about government intervention in our lives is the government itself - made up of humans that supposedly have the ability to think things through and make good decisions. Look at them at work today. Is there any one of them that can make the decision for you better than you can make it for yourself? I won't even ask you to look at how many of those law makers are obese by today's medical standards.

So there is good legislation and bad, too much government intrusion versus some long overdue. The safety net, I would suggest, is the people we put into office to make those decisions. There are times we do a pretty poor job of "vetting" them!

Bacchus And His Doofy Meter

Bacchus's week was far less exciting than last week when he made the acquaintance of Emily the Golden Lab, but it wasn't bad.

His stitches came out Tuesday and the vet was pleased at how perky he seemed and the fact that his weight is holding steady.

He has his frisky moments like running the fence line with Sadie, the Boxer next door, now that some of the snow has melted. They're a pair, both about the same age. It's like watching geriatrics running. Not much pace and a lot of huffing and puffing from all parties but oh, the exhilaration!

Yesterday he supervised the workmen next door doing some work on the neighbor's septic. Lift that shovel! His vocal encouragement was loud and clear.

He had a visit with his kennel guy and has had a lot of rides right on past the vet. I can sense him exhaling in relief. No pricks or probes at the end of this ride! Next Friday we go back to WSU to have his "reveal" read. It won't tell them what they want; we can see that his respiration is still elevated, but his system seems to have settled into the medications and he's adjusting his level of activity accordingly. When he sleeps he sleeps the sleep of the just, especially if the just snore!

Some days are up, some a bit less, but if doofiness is any measure he's holding his own!

Who Benefits From This Stimulus Money?

The local paper informs us Kootenai County is going to receive $1.29 million in transit funds as part of the stimulus program. It is slated to go to an ad hoc group known as the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization.

They plan to spend $300,000 to replace a pair of City Link buses, $150,000 for wheelchair accessible mini-buses and $50,000 for a para transit bus. I'm assuming this is a full size bus, rather than a mini. Another $70,000 is slated to go for a maintenance vehicle for City Link. So far so good. This is a free service, in conjunction with the Coeur d'Alene tribe, to transport people from town to town and to the tribe's casino.

What I choked on was the $720,200 that will be used for an environmental study to choose a site for a transit center.

Here's my problem. I appreciate looking ahead. However, in this time of need, and there is plenty of it in this area, I'm wondering if this is the time for at least a portion of these expenditures. Ridership has been up because of increased routes, high gas prices and a brutal winter. Winter is nearly over, gas prices have leveled off and the destinations are all places for riders to spend money that most don't have. The casino? Cabelas? Great places for those who have disposable income. Even the seniors who have made the route to the casino a popular one are having to pinch their pennies.

Now, where does this money go? Does it stay in the community? Are those buses manufactured or outfitted in Kootenai County? Or does that money go else where?

And the study? Is that large an expenditure really necessary? Who will be doing it? A firm within the county or will that money also be going elsewhere?

We're then told the transit center, once the location is determined, will cost $1.3 million. One, how do they know this since the location is to be determined by the $720,200 study! Where is the additional money to come from and just what is this "stimulating"?

The remaining wish list that includes money for a jail the voters turned down, a fire station for a rural town and a building for a boys and girls club will at least create construction and staffing jobs. Whether monies for those projects will be forthcoming is any one's guess. I hope a lot of it does. But back to basics, I find it hard to believe $720,200 couldn't be put to better use than deciding where to put a fancy bus stop.

Stimulus: • a thing that rouses activity or energy in someone or something; a spur or incentive : if the tax were abolished, it would act as a stimulus to exports.

If there are no jobs created in the short term there will be no riders for the bus system in the long term. No one will be afford to play the slots and Cabelas will close its doors along with the businesses that have already done so or are slated to do so in the near term. No one paid me $720,200 to figure that out!

McCain Chose The Wrong Sarah!

Did you know there is a periodical called the Journal of Experimental Psychology ? Neither did I. I think though, it may be well named considering the subject of a recent article.

All this time, since the election, I've been under the impression that McCain lost because he was a weak candidate with an even politically weaker running mate. As is often the case, I've apparently been mistaken. I guess I failed to consider the psychology of the matter. The idea that Sarah Palin was too good looking for her - and John's - own good.

According to an article on Yahoo , a group of students were asked to write their thoughts and feelings about Palin. Another group was asked to write about their thoughts and feelings about her appearance.

The most favorable results came from the group writing about her appearance rather than her those who were asked to assess, among other things, her competence. They also reported they'd be less likely to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Wow. What they're telling us is that if you have a pretty face you can't possibly be capable. Tell that to Glenn Close when she's not in her Sarah, Plain and Tall make up!

There is a definite psychological implication in all of this. Consider the news media. How many unattractive people of either sex sit in an anchor's chair? How many of them come across as being nothing more than a reader of words, written by others, from a monitor? And maybe not the brightest bulb on the set?

Talk about the brainwashing of the masses! There are a huge number of reasons I would not like to see Sarah Palin in national office, but her looks are definitely not one of them!

Coeur d'Alene - Cattle Barons, Cattle, Sheep and Sacred Cows

Having long been a fan of Westerns, I can't help but see the parallels between Coeur d'Alene and the towns depicted in John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movies.

You know, the town has a boss; usually a rich and ethically challenged rancher. He owns the sheriff and the banker and the mayor. There are the good citizens who constantly challenge the boss but have their property destroyed or worse. They're the cattle. The sheep are played by the extras. Just there to fill space and scurry for cover when a gunfight is looming. The sacred cows are the ambitions of the boss yet to be fulfilled.

To make it a movie, the town folk who care have to get some muscle of their own Either they hire their own gun fighter or the requisite lonely stranger lopes into town. He's never looking for trouble but will always fight for truth and justice if necessary.

We have such a scenario here with a few 21st century twists. We have the boss. A plot twist is that he's being challenged by some newcomers which has created conflict among those he owns. What if the strangers should beat the old man at his own game? Who should we be beholden to?

Well, the boss is a crafty old fellow. He knows how to keep his cards close to the vest. He allows his minions just enough rope to hang themselves if they get too far out of line, but when he wants something he knows how to snug up the noose quite effectively.

Here's how it works in Coeur d'Alene. You have to have lived here awhile and followed local politics with some diligence to follow all the twists and turns of the plot. Let's see if I can make some sense of it for you. The boss owns the resort and a whole lot of the town. One can argue that he owns the mayor and the city council especially since there are two former mayors serving along side the present one. Not being able to eliminate elections, occasionally the mayor and her council have to buck the boss for the sake of their own careers. Example being the boss wanting to close a main street to satisfy his desire to beautify his holdings. Even the sheep took note of this and the protest was such that the effort was nixed.

Okay. There will be another time. There always is.

Meantime the new boss wanna be's came to town with grand plans of their own. Their problem is that to even get started they had to deal with an appendage of the council to get financing so in essence, they too were beholden to the boss.

Meantime the good folks who care, our cattle, keep nipping away at the process, the lack of openness and the outright disregard for law. To no avail. They are belittled, called all sorts of names or ignored all together. Yet still they try.

Suddenly, that lone hombre came loping along and they went to him with a complaint about a member of the councils' urban renewal appendage. It seems the bloke was a banker who's bank lends money for fancy new projects like the newcomers want. Rather than recuse himself from voting on such issues he did so without the proper revelation of his banking connections. Of course this was common knowledge but only the activists seemed to care. The hero, armed with this information, took it to the state attorney general who indeed found evidence of conflict of interest but without enough intent toward wrong doing to bring charges.

As Hub said, that's a stretch. If he didn't know the implications of his position he's as dumb as a cob. But then the rationale is that he loves this town and would do nothing to hurt it. So okay. Hub's point is well taken.

Score one for the town folk and their hero. Why has the boss allowed this to come forth? Well, he does own the paper. Did I mention that? My guess is it's because he wants to resurrect another pet project. He needs his minions to get back in line and remember who's provided them with their lifeline.

The final scenes are yet to unfold. Will the beleaguered member of the urban renewal board resign? I doubt it. Will the boss get the approvals he needs for his project? I doubt that he will not. What will happen to the caring folks that have left the wheel ungreased for a long enough time that even the sheep are beginning to hear it?

In days gone by they'd be pilloried and burned out. We're a tad more civilized than that today. They will continue to be called names and be belittled but they may actually be gaining a foothold. How so? It's an election year for three members of the council, including the mayor. Whoever runs for re-election will be telling as will whoever the challengers may be. They have the attention of their hero, a state senator, and the state attorney general. Hmmm.

I'm not going to forecast the outcome. I don't live in the town. Unless it creeps into the county I have no stake in it. But I sure am looking forward to following this to its conclusion. I'm just grateful at least one paper is keeping us informed. Even if it does belong to the boss.

I vowed a long time ago to steer clear of local issues except for the occasional animal story or some such. But honestly, this is too good to pass up. Script writers, eat your heart out. I haven't even scratched the surface!

I, however, am done. I'm never too sure how accurate the reporting is nor my interpretation of it. I do know that squeaky wheel has yet to be greased and is unlikely to be any time soon.