Category: Politics

Posted on

Gendercide

By Jim Spiegel

The issue of “gendercide” has been in the news lately, as the U. S. House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would ban abortions motivated by the preference for having a baby boy.  Opponents of the bill insist that it was just a conservative ploy to limit women’s reproductive freedom.

One sad irony in all of this is that the term “gendercide” was coined by Mary Ann Warren in her 1985 book Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection.  Warren decried this most brutal form of sexism, yet her influential philosophical defenses of abortion, such as her landmark article “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”[1] in the early 70s, reinforced the very pro-choice culture that has made gendercide so rampant in the United States.

There are some lessons here.  For one thing, this further reveals the incoherence of the notion that the pro-choice position is pro-women.  For years we have known just how devastating abortions are for the women who have them, both psychologically and physically.  Now we’re seeing how the abortion culture is especially deadly for women, even before they leave the womb.

Secondly, as Sidney Callahan has brilliantly pointed out,[2] the pro-choice culture is actually a disguised form of patriarchy in the sense that it ultimately gives more power to men, not women.  The abortion culture does so by: (a) encouraging women to think of childbearing as a burden rather than as a source of life-giving power and (b) further enabling men to engage in sex with women without any concerns about long-term commitment or support.

So as bad as gendercide is, it is but one more symptom of the fact that abortion rights are anything but pro-women.

[1] Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” The Monist (January, 1973): 43-51.

[2] Sidney Callahan, “Abortion and the Sexual Agenda,” Commonweal (April, 1986): 232-238.

Posted on

Playing Politics

By Amy Spiegel

The recent Indiana primaries, along with the umpteen-million political ads on the radio, have me thinking about politics and more specifically the term “political.”  You hear this term used all the time.  Someone made a “purely political” decision. Someone else is “playing politics.” Considering the fact that all these “someones” are politicians, should we really be surprised at all this politicking? What’s so bad about being political, especially when it’s your job?

I looked up the definition of the term and found that “political” refers to “the theory and practice of government, especially the activities associated with governing, with obtaining legislative or executive power, or with forming and running organizations connected with government.” Well, that doesn’t sound too bad, now does it?

If being political is just the “practice of government,” then wherein lies the problem? I think the problem is that when you have two parties with two different ideas on how to do something, be they individuals or in our case two opposing political parties, someone has to win and someone has to lose. Today for instance, I desperately wanted Jim to help me clean the house. And he graciously agreed. I was overjoyed…right up until the point when he suggested we clean the house in a way not normally practiced by myself. I had a decision to make: take away his mop and say “Have fun mowing the yard!” or do things his way. Point is, we couldn’t do it both ways. And the same is true in government. There is only so much compromise that is possible. One side gets their way and one side does not. Too often, I think people use the phrase “playing politics” to describe a decision one side makes that they simply don’t agree with.

In a country as large and as diverse as the United States, there is little hope of complete agreement. After all, that is sort of the point of our founding the political system we have, where differing points of view can be freely expressed. But that doesn’t mean that all those points of view are going to make their way into law. When those views come into conflict, one view will win out over the other.

So when we see politicians make certain decisions for “purely political” reasons, maybe we should remember that, well, they are politicians after all.  And when we want to accuse them of “playing politics,” perhaps we should consider that both sides are “playing” that game, whether or not our side has won the latest round.

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2011

By Jim Spiegel

2011 was another exciting year, and we want to thank you all again for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Here are our annual summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family.

Best Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Tree of Life was easily my pick for the year’s best film.  Emotionally gripping and theologically profound, with brilliant directing by Terrence Malick and superb acting all around—even by the child actors.  See my October 3 post for a full review.  But I also loved Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.  Riveting action and great intellectual stimulation.  Can’t say that about too many films.
  • Amy: Not my favorite year for movies but Winter’s Bone was definitely a bright spot or albeit a rather dark, bright spot. It has haunted me. I wanted to choose the latest version of Jane Eyre but couldn’t forgive the poor handling of the last 30 seconds.

Worst Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Batman: The Dark Knight.  Yep, I’m a few years late on this one.  I planned to avoid it altogether, but finally gave in at the request of a friend.  It was just as bad as I feared.  Yes, Heath Ledger’s performance was excellent.  But the screenplay is dull, and the overarching theme of the basic goodness of human beings is, well, just false.  Am I taking it too seriously?  Not as seriously as many hardcore Batman fans, I’m afraid.
  • Amy: I have to agree with Jim on this one. It was dull, so very dull. But at least it was super, super long. I would also throw in Thor and Black Swan, both featuring Natalie Portman. Still trying to figure out if she can really act or not.

Best and Worst Musical Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  The Black Keys’ El Camino is an instant classic.  Just when you thought these guys couldn’t get any better (after last year’s album, Brothers), they blow us away with this effort, produced by Danger Mouse.  It’s still soul-tinged blues rock, but bit more polished and radio ready.  Can’t wait to see these guys live in Cincy on March 2.  As for the worst, it’s easily Rebecca Black’s Friday.  Or does she win for “Most Nasal Vocal Performance of the Year”?  Gotta love the lyrics.  “We so excited!”
  • Amy: My musical experiences are much more low brow than Jim’s, though I wholeheartedly agree regarding The Black Keys. Mostly I listen to the stuff the kids are into (Party Rock Anthem and Uprising) and whatever will keep me moving on the treadmill. I have been rolling in the deep with Adele and no one can accuse her of being low brow. My worst experience involved creating the perfect Christmas playlist for the “Jingle Bell Jog” (a 5k held to benefit lighthouse trips) only to be stuck in front of the Taylor Women’s Cross Country singing “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.” I don’t know which was worse: not being able to hear Sufjan Stevens’ amazing version of “I Saw Three Ships” or the obvious fact that they were not winded at all.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moments of the Year:  The Detroit Tigers winning the American League Central Division was definitely a thrill.  But, even as a non-Denver sports fan, following the Tim Tebow-led Broncos’ comebacks for much of the NFL season was pretty exciting, too.  Watching him scramble while trying to find an open receiver has been fun, but its been just as fun watching football pundits scramble to find ways to justify their hatred of the guy.

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moments of the Year:  It was hard to watch the Texas Rangers dispatch the Tigers in the ALCS two months ago.  (After their World Series heartbreak, I bet they wished they’d been bounced earlier.)   Watching the Saints lose to the lowly Seahawks in the NFL playoffs last January was tough too.

Amy’s Best Eating Experience of the Year:  Oven-roasted tomato soup topped with a slice of French bread and cheddar cheese. It’s just a bubbling pot of love!

Amy’s Worst Eating Experience of the Year:  This would be a tie between two experiences, one which involved not eating. On the way to Jim’s mom’s house, we stopped at Subway for lunch. Faced with a long line and with Cracker Barrel gift cards burning a hole in our collective wallet, we hustled the kids back into the van. Faced with an even longer line, we hustled the now really hungry and annoyed kids back into the car. Lots of whining and a 45 minute car ride later, we met with an even longer line and gave up on the Barrel altogether. Ten minutes down the road, Chick-fil-A came to the rescue. The other experience was least dramatic and involved my forcing the fam to eat whole wheat oatmeal pancakes only to discover they weren’t exaggerating when they said they were “awful.” Sorry guys.

Satisfying Reads of the Year:

  • Jim:  In the scholarly category, I loved Roger Scruton’s Beauty, an insightful and elegant little book, aesthetically satisfying in a way the subject matter deserves.  Also, I enjoyed Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus.  It works as an introduction to Jesus studies and New Testament scholarship, as well as a powerful critique of many of the popular biblical skeptics (e.g., Bart Ehrman).  And as for general audience stuff, I appreciated Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting, a deeply personal reflection on living as a celibate homosexual.  I highly recommend this for anyone who struggles in this area.
  • Amy:  One Thousand Gifts by Ann Voskamp has deeply inspired me as a believer and a writer. On the non-fiction front, Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand was amazing, especially given the author’s back story. I enjoyed Killing Lincoln and 1776 and for pure pleasure reading The Hunger Games was a great story if not perfectly executed.

Political High Point of the Year:  Jim: Were there any high points?  Amy: Yes, any time Chris Christie opened his mouth.

Political Low Points of the Year:  Anything having to do with the “Occupy” movement.  As if all the rapes, deaths, theft, and property destruction, weren’t enough, we still haven’t heard a coherent position statement from OWS folks, particularly regarding why they take their protests to “Wall Street” rather than Capitol Hill.  Come on, ya’ll.  And what’s the deal with those creepy masks?

Best 2011 Memories of Our Kids:

  • Our summer trip to the Indiana Dunes and then, via train, to Chicago (notwithstanding Andrew’s nausea at one point—happily we got him to a trash can before he “tossed his groceries”).
  • Going to the midnight showing of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 with Bailey.
  • Watching all our kids ride the “big” roller coasters at Dollywood.
  • Seeing Sam give his first public performance as a percussionist (on bongos).  He has so much rhythm, we’re wondering if he might have been accidentally switched with a Brazilian baby at the hospital nine years ago.

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  Helping to edit Amy’s fantastic first book.  Can’t wait till May, honey-bunny!  (BTW, will you share some of the royalty money with me?)
  • Amy:  Redoing our upstairs bathroom. (BTW, yes but only if you promise not to spend it on anything practical.)

New Year’s Resolutions:

  • Jim:  To take my wife out on more dates and read more John Updike essays.
  • Amy: To have more in-house dates with my husband that don’t require a babysitter or me folding laundry.  And to read the entire New Testament, even the really convicting parts.

Happy 2012 everyone!

Posted on

You Say You Want a Revolution?

By Jim Spiegel

A new Rasmussen Reports poll found that just 17% of Americans say our government has “consent of the governed.”  Only 8% believe their representatives on Capitol Hill listen to their constituents more than their own party leaders, and a mere 6% give Congress a “good” or “excellent” rating.  These are historic lows.  Meanwhile, President Obama’s approval index rating stands at -21, and another Rasmussen poll found that fewer voters than ever believe U.S. elections are fair.

Note the phrase “consent of the governed” used by the Rasmussen pollsters.  It is borrowed from John Locke, the early modern social contract theorist who most influenced the American founding fathers.  It was also Locke who effectively argued for the people’s “right of revolution” when the government violates the basic rights of those it is supposed to represent.  The Lockean notion of the right to revolt held sway among our forefathers, as it was asserted in the Declaration of Independence and, to many, justified the American Revolution.

Might another revolution be coming?  In a recent Fox News interview, Pat Caddell called our current condition “pre-revolutionary.”  It’s a frightening prospect and one that not long ago seemed unthinkable.  But such talk is increasingly common on the Internet, among people (on both the left and right) who favor it as the key to progress as well as those, like me, who believe it would be devastating and a sure path to extreme oppression.

Bloggers everywhere have picked up on Caddell’s remarks, and it will be interesting to see where the discussion goes from here.  Will the effect on most people be politically sobering or intoxicating?  Let us pray for the former.

Posted on

Thislethwaite, Theology, and the Norway Massacre

By Jim Spiegel

This Washington Post piece by Susan Brooks Thislethwaite has created quite stir.  Take a look, and you’ll see why.  For starters, she follows the NY Times and others in referring to the Norway mass assassin, Anders Behring Breivik, as a Christian.  Then she goes on to challenge readers to consider how Christianity may inspire violence.  Interestingly, in her article she vacillates between asserting that the supposed violence-inspiring elements in Christianity are mere theological “interpretations” of our religion, on the one hand, and actual “elements of Christianity” on the other.  If she intends to claim the latter, she gives us no evidence whatsoever to support her claim.  If she intends only to suggest the former, then her remarks are horribly misleading.  In any case, Thislethwaite’s article is inflammatory and only manages to create confusion.

Thislethwaite apparently rejects the distinction between genuine Christians and those who merely claim to be Christians.  We recognize this distinction in every other context, so why not here?  Being a Christian is not simply a matter of affirming certain propositions, as is clear from many biblical passages (e.g., Mt. 25:31-46; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; and Gal. 5:19-21).  Even if Anders Breivik did affirm the deity and resurrection of Jesus (which, by the way, he denies), this does not by itself make him any more Christian than the devil himself (who presumably would affirm these truths).

It is telling that Thislethwaite doesn’t bother to identify any biblical passages that might reasonably be construed to inspire violence, much less mass murder.  Perhaps she has in mind certain Old Testament passages where God commanded the killing of the Canaanites.  But these are not uniquely Christian texts.  Jews and Muslims also regard these as scripture.  It is the New Testament that is uniquely Christian, so it is here that we must look for “Christian elements” that might inspire violence.  And what do we find in the New Testament?  A consistent ethic of non-violence.  The ethic of “turn the other cheek” non-resistance.  The ethic of submitting to political authorities.  And, when one must disobey the governing authorities, an ethic of peaceful disobedience.  In short, we find an ethic of non-violence that has inspired numerous pacifist theological traditions.  Yet Thislethwaite insinuates that there is something about Christianity that could justify violence?  Breathtaking.

Okay, so perhaps what Thislethwaite really wants to suggest is that some madmen, most recently Anders Breivik, have warped or twisted Christian ideas to their own use in attempting to justify their violence.  Well, of course this is true—and it is so obvious it is hardly worth stating.  But if this is all she wants to say, then why does she say that it is Christianity that becomes lethal, that Christianity may be complicit in mass violence?  Perhaps Thislethwaite just wants to have it both ways—to implicate Christian theology itself in violence without having to do the biblical or theological analysis necessary to demonstrate this (which, of course, is an impossible task, as I just noted—the New Testament nowhere endorses violence but only peaceful responses, whether in resistance or non-resistance).

Or, more cynically, perhaps Thislethwaite’s only real aim in this piece is political.  Maybe she just wants to create a negative association with conservative Christianity by suggesting that Breivik is a “right wing” Christian extremist.  This would certainly help to demonize the political views of conservative Christians—views that, as a “left wing” political thinker, Thislethwaite personally despises.

In the end, I’m not sure what Thislethwaite’s aims or real claims are in this piece.  What I am sure of is that her article is confused, inflammatory, and irresponsible.

Posted on

Pre-emptive Strike on Iran?

By Jim Spiegel

Last week Israeli cabinet minister Moshe Yaalon reasserted the danger of the Iranian nuclear threat, noting that a pre-emptive military strike might be necessary.  Of course, such remarks have been made before, but given the steady advance of Iran’s nuclear program and the abiding menace of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the situation grows more urgent every day.  Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and has gone on record as desiring that Israel be wiped off the map (or “vanish from the pages of history,” as his statement is sometimes translated).

So at what point, if ever, will a pre-emptive strike against Iran justifiable?  One of the criteria for a just initiation of war is that of “just cause.”  There must be sufficient grounds for a military attack, the paradigm case being that of self-defense.  But, of course, just what counts as “self-defense” is disputable.  Should this be limited to instances where a nation has already suffered military attack?  What about other forms of “attack,” such as cyber-terrorism or economic attacks?  And what about imminent threats?  How likely must the coming attack be?  And how severe?  These latter questions are the salient ones when it comes to the Iran question.  It does appear the threat is imminent.  Moreover, the severity could hardly be greater, since we’re talking nuclear attack, the occurrence of which could result in the elimination of Israel envisioned by Ahmadinejad.  But just how likely this attack is, once Iran is nuclear-ready, well, that’s not at all clear.  Perhaps only Iran’s president himself knows.  Of course, the civilized world could take a wait-and-see approach.  But at what potential cost?

These are hard questions, as hard as they get when it comes to international affairs.  We now know that President Obama agonized over the decision to send a Navy Seal team in to Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden.  As difficult as that decision was, it doesn’t compare to the agony Obama faces when it comes to the Iran question.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. Budget Deal in Perspective: This past week our leaders in Washington struck an “historic” budget deal that cuts Federal spending by a whopping $38.5 billion.  Awesome, right?  This will put a dent in our national debt, right?  Wrong. To put things in perspective, the national debt climbed over $650 billion since October, and in just the previous ten days it grew by more than $50 billion.  Its going to take much more drastic measures to get serious about our financial crisis.  So while Congress and the President are patting themselves on the back, we continue to move steadily toward national bankruptcy.

2. The President and Religious Freedom: Check out this excellent piece by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute on how President Obama is dropping the ball when it comes to promoting religious freedom.  But, as Bandow explains, its not too late for Obama to rectify the situation, if he and his Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, act quickly and decisively.

3. Another Non-win for Woods: I’ve never been much of a golf fan, but I think I’m becoming one.  This weekend I followed the Masters tournament like never before.  Why?  Because I was rooting for Tiger Woods…to lose.  That’s right.  I’m an enthusiastic anti-Woods fan.  Or, more positively put, I’m a fan of all PGA golfers minus one.  And today one of my rooting interests was victorious, in the person of South African Charl Schwartzel.  Ugly name.  Great golfer.  And, as far as I can tell, a much better role model than Woods.

Posted on

Why Government is Stupid

By Amy Spiegel

I realize that being a libertarian these days has become the cool way of disengaging from the political scene without looking entirely apathetic. However, after having recently spent more than a dozen hours trapped—uh, I mean bonding—with my two youngest kids in the car with nothing but the voices on the radio to distract me from their incessant whining—uh, I mean playful chatter—I continue to be drawn to the idea that most of the things the government does these days is really stupid. National defense? All for it. Basic infrastructure? Sure. Umm…coming up blank for any other major problems I trust either side of the aisle to tackle with some semblance of competence. Here are a few examples that have me ready to pack up and head for the hills:

Number One: I recently heard a report on the crisis facing many states regarding their unemployment insurance programs. With so many unemployed, the states don’t have the money to continue benefit payments and several are faced with raising taxes in order to help fund their programs. Not only are they looking to raise everyone’s taxes (a sure fire way to stimulate the economy) but it has also been suggested that businesses could be forced to contribute more to the fund. So rather than taking money that could be used to hire new employees, employers will be paying into a fund that will filter the money through goodness knows how many levels of bureaucracy until a portion of it finds its way into the hands of those who really just need a job? I certainly don’t want to straw man our complex system of economics or look upon the unemployed with a heart of stone, but I simply don’t see the government as the most efficient distributor of wealth.

Number Two: Last year, NASA was called in by the Department of Transportation to investigate the connection between unexplained accelerations among Toyota vehicles and possible flaws in their cars’ electrical systems. (Personally, I think the DOT only asked NASA to help so they could include such phrases as “rocket scientists” and “well, the experts from NASA say” in their reports but that theory has yet to be proven.) Ten months (and goodness knows how many millions of our dollars) later, nothing is wrong with the electrical systems! Well that must be such a relief to the hundreds of people who actually experienced this problem. As opposed to the millions of us who helped pay for this study. Again, I don’t want to seem cold-hearted, but this seems more like a private matter between the consumer and company. Let them work it out between themselves or, if needed, use the court system. I think there is a long laundry list of concerns that outrank this one. If Toyota has a defective product, don’t buy it and leave the rocket scientists to study, I don’t know, rocket science.

Number Three: President Obama recently announced “new investments” in a high-speed rail system. Now I love trains and am convinced that people in Europe are better informed simply because while we are all stuck in our cars inhaling carbon monoxide, they are reading books and periodicals on the train. Nevertheless, I have two objections to this idea. First, until the federal government can prove its efficiency in any areas other than collecting taxes and spending more than they collect, how about we forego flushing more money down the public toilet of Amtrak subsidies? If the country needs high-speed trains, let someone else figure out how to make it profitable. When that happens, I will gladly sit smilingly beside Joe Biden and yell “All aboard!” My other objection stems from the dysfunctional relationship government creates between its “consumers” and the “company.” An example? Libraries. Again, I love libraries but when I am annoyed by their policies or rude attitudes where do I go for recourse? There are times when I would gladly pay for additional privileges (longer hold times, extra renewals) but since the library has no profit motive, why should they care if I am satisfied or not? If video rental stores can turn a profit, why not private subscriptions to libraries?

Perhaps these are oversimplifications of highly complex issues, but if our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, then perhaps we the people need to be out there doing for ourselves and giving the government a bit of a federal holiday.

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2010

By Jim Spiegel

It’s been another exciting year, and we want to thank you all for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Once again, we would like to close out the year with some summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family.

Best Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Shutter Island and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  Though these are films in different genres, they are both superbly directed, well-acted, and have compelling stories.  And both films successfully transport the viewer into an alternate reality (or two).  But while Shutter Island leaves you questioning your perception of the world, Dawn Treader inspires you with the hope of transcending it.  Oh, and Toy Story 3 was brilliant, too—transporting the viewer in still another way.
  • Amy:  No Man of Her Own, Emma, and Tangled. In reviewing my viewing choices this year, I must acknowledge that my standards have lowered a bit this year.  These films are a bit more movie than film but great nonetheless.  No Man is a fab film noir starring Barbara Stanwyck.  While there are enough adaptations of Jane Austen’s Emma to sink the Titanic, this one is excellently done and it’s two discs long!  I just took our two youngsters to Tangled a few days ago as an act of love and ended up laughing (and crying) along with them.

Worst Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  This is an easy call: Greenberg.  What a colossal waste of time.  Yet, this reviewer at A.V. Club recommended it, while admitting that this film, like all of director Noah Baumbach’s comedies, is “plotless, self-consciously literary, and populated by characters who flat-out suck from the time they roll out of the bed until they angrily switch out the lights at night.”  He’s right about that much.  But he also finds the film to be “hilarious” and “a pleasure to look at.”  I wonder if we watched the same film.
  • Amy:  Inception.  Maybe this film doesn’t deserve to be called the worst I watched, but it was such a disappointment that I am placing it in the worst experience category.  I anticipated a smart and mind-bending experience.  What I got was an action movie with a side-serving of love story.  I actually fast-forwarded several sections of shoot-me-up.  A close second is The Last Air Bender.  I only make it second because I couldn’t actually make myself watch this much anticipated live action version of our most beloved Nickelodeon show.  I had heard it was awful and made the kids watch it.  Even they hated it.  M. Knight Shyamalan, you’re killing me!

Best and Worst Musical Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  Josh Ritter’s So Runs the World Away and Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs.  I actually purchased both of these CDs on the same day, so I spent the next month in musical bliss, bathing in the musical beauty.  For the most part, I avoided stinkers, due mainly to my careful research before purchasing new music.  But what I could not avoid was hearing the Black Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling” everywhere I went.  Blecch!
  • Amy:  I am starting to sense a pattern of shallowness in my aesthetic sense this year.  I am sensing a New Year’s resolution coming on. Anyhoo, my musical selections were mostly limited to good workout music (“Stuck to You” by Nikka Costa, “Strip Me” by Natasha Bedingfield and “The Way I Are” by Timbaland).  I have just purchased albums by Rosanne Cash and Emmylou Harris, which I hope to enjoy in the New Year.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moment of the Year: Two of my three favorite NFL teams playing in the Super Bowl.  Well, the run-up to the Super Bowl was actually more satisfying than the game itself, which at times felt like watching my kids fight.  I was sad for my Colts but thrilled for my Saints, with whom I have suffered as a fan since the early 1980s.  Who Dat!!!

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moment of the Year: All of the LeBron James summer free agency hype, culminating in an hour-long ESPN James announcement TV special.  LeTacky and LeShameless.  My interest in the NBA and respect for ESPN have declined faster than the U.S. economy.

Amy’s Best Eating Experience of the Year: While attending a conference with Jim in Atlanta, we “attempted” to visit the Atlanta Art Museum.  We sighed with regret as we took an afternoon siesta and mumbled something about going to the Art Museum.  We didn’t make it to the museum, but we did make it to the restaurant adjacent to the Museum.  I had rabbit with pumpkin ravioli.  That’s right—rabbit and let me tell you, Bugs Bunny was tasty!

Amy’s Worst Eating Experience of the Year: If we are talking overall experience, it would have to be an ill-fated family trip to Cracker Barrel.  The bad side was the service, which was horrible and slow; also, the food was cold and the manager snapped at me when I pointed this out.  The up side was that, in the end, our dinner was on the house.  I also hosted a dinner party at which I unfortunately served grey soup; not a shining moment in my culinary career.

Satisfying Reads of the Year:

  • Jim:  Howard Storm’s My Descent into Death was the most engrossing and inspiring book I’ve read in years (see my May 30 post).  Keaton, the classic Buster Keaton biography by Rudi Blesh, was also excellent (see my August 8 post).  I also enjoyed numerous short stories by Flannery O’Connor.
  • Amy:  The Help by Kathryn Stockett and The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie by Alan Bradley were both great book club selections this year.  I spent a good part of the year reading books with Bailey and Maggie so for tween boys I recommend the Gregor the Overlander series or Mr. Popper’s Penguins and The Moffats.

Political High Point of the Year: Kicking (a lot of) the bums out of Congress in November.  We’ll see how many of these newly elected folks turn out to be bums as well.

Political Low Points of the Year: Amy’s low point was the day after the November elections when she had the sinking feeling that all the newly elected Senators and Representatives would prove to be just as disappointing as the bums that we threw out.  Jim’s low point was the passing of Obamacare in March.  Already two U.S. District Court judges have struck down part of the health care law as unconstitutional (portending much bigger legal wrangling to come).  What a mess.

Good 2010 Memories of Our Kids:

  • Bailey learning to play guitar and his ability to imitate us with frightening accuracy.
  • Watching Sam finish first in the Fairmount James Dean race for his age group
  • Maggie having her first spend-the-night at a friend’s house.  Coincidentally, this was also the quietest night of the year at the Spiegels.
  • Andrew declaring himself the “King of Potato Wedges,” among other things.  He also is now fully potty trained—a major family milestone, to be sure.

Favorite Backyard Adventures of the Year:

  • Jim:  Installing a zip-line and watching the kids’ creative uses of it (not including Sam’s inadvertent back flip and landing on his shoulders)
  • Amy:  The raised bed in which we planted cucumbers, carrots, and onions.  The cucumbers dominated impressively.

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  Eating at the 1280 Restaurant in Atlanta—the $18 scallops were worth every bite (which is saying a lot, as they averaged out to over $3.00 per bite).
  • Amy:  Any of our several family bike rides—the back of my bike is finally toddler free!  A close second was the camping trip the kids and I took to Indiana Dunes State Park.  I was so proud of myself for going, proud of the kids for being such troupers and amazed at the beauty of Lake Michigan.

New Year’s Resolutions:

  • Jim:  To read ten books in New Testament and historical Jesus studies; also to stop biting my nails (without having to forego following sports).
  • Amy:  To run a 10K race and read at least six books by C.S. Lewis (and not just his fiction).

Happy 2011 everyone!

Posted on

Pulling the Cotton Wool Over My Eyes

By Amy Spiegel

Just when I thought the health care debate was dead and buried, last week U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson announced he would hear argument in a lawsuit brought on by a coalition of states seeking to block the recently passed health care overhaul.  And just when I thought I had no new thoughts regarding the subject, a conspiracy of circumstances conspired to prove me wrong. First, while having coffee with several moms from my kids’ school, someone shared her experience of having a baby in England. Under their nationalized health care system, so said the above mentioned mother, patients are expected to provide many items that we take for granted on this side of the big pond—diapers, towels, and feminine products, none of which are supplied by the hospital. She even told the story of her infant daughter having blood drawn and the nurse turning to her and demanding cotton wool (that’s a cotton ball to us Yanks but it sounds so much more dignified to say cotton wool) in order to stop the bleeding.

After recovering from my initial shock, I realized that I had cotton wool pulled over my eyes if I thought for one moment the hospitals States-side were “giving” me anything! Sure, the nurse is only too willing to bandage my bundle-of-joy’s wee foot with a cotton ball, after which the hospital files a claim with my insurance company charging $20 for “a sterilized blood-absorbing sphere.” This realization occurred, in part as I visited my own medical professional the next morning. I have been having knee pain for a while now and after she listened to my symptoms, my doctor immediately ordered blood work, x-rays, the whole nine yards. Holding the sterilized blood-absorbing sphere to the needle prick in my arm, I realized I had no idea how much any of this was costing. I am the woman who holds war room strategy meetings over how to visit Olive Garden as a family without blowing our entire budget in one meal. I coupon and bargain hunt and yet here I was going through a battery of, what I assumed to be, very expensive tests with no concept of the final price tag.

That’s when it hit me: the problem with health care is me; at least in part, that is. Sure there is need for tort reform, limits to malpractice settlements and Medicare fraud. But that certainly doesn’t negate my own responsibility to be a wise consumer of medical treatment in the same way I try to be in all other areas of my spending. When our kids need braces in a few years, Jim and I fully intend to shop around. Why? Because we are the ones paying for it. Not in some obscure way of filing claims and benefit packages nor through paying taxes and then having the government act as our middle man, but in the hey-let-me-reach-into-my-pocket-and-pull-out-the-money-we-were-saving-for-vaction-and-have-you-put-it-on-my-kid’s-teeth-instead way. I don’t recall ever walking into the grocery store and handing all my money to some third party, giving them my list, and assuming they would buy what we needed at a good price. So why on earth do I do it with healthcare and why in the name of all that is holy would I want to let the government take over that role?

Perhaps the time is coming when I won’t have any choice in the matter, but I believe that if that time is coming it is, in part, because I abdicated the responsibility of choice long ago. Perhaps it is too late to make a difference, but I now have fantasies of entering my doctor’s office armed with a new sense of empowerment and duty to question. I will figure out what counts toward deductible and which number I am supposed to call on my insurance card.  And I will definitely bring my own cotton wool.