Livingston, I Presume

Not exactly mother of the year

In the department of why sex ed and legal abortion are important comes this story carried widely in Montana newspapers. For those of you who don't want to make the link jump, I'll summarize. An 18-year-old mother left her infant--clad only in pajamas--on the doorstep of a neighbor in the middle of the night so that she could go to a party. Later in the evening she pounded on other doors in the neighborhood because she couldn't remember where she'd put him. Unsurprisingly, she's now being charged with child endangerment, since the neighbor called the police after finding the baby.

It's incidents like this one that make me spew bordering-on-eugenic phrases, against my better liberal judgment. I remember horrifying my French colleague a few years ago when I trotted out my well-worn (half) joke about developing technology to allow mandatory reversible sterilization at birth. Every child deserves a healthy, happy upbringing. That doesn't mean Leave-It-To-Beaver-land mother-father familes to the exclusion of everything else, just that kids deserve better than what they're getting now in far too many cases.

Raising a child is hard work, harder than anything else I've ever done. Why are there so few supports in place for people? I'm not saying state-sponsored daycare for 18-year-old mothers who want to go to parties, but how about guaranteed paid maternity leave? How about subsidized childcare for women who want or have to work? How about jobs that pay a living wage?

None of that would have helped that poor baby on the Great Falls doorstep, but maybe if there were more value attached to parenthood we wouldn't entrust a baby with a woman like that in the first place.

Quacking me up

Chip maintains that I'm going to give Connery a complex because I laughed when he said this, but I would defy anyone *not* to laugh:

The scene: The dinner table

The conversation: The umpteenth reminder to Connery to sit in his seat rather than squirming around in a manner to make him likely to fall off and crack his head open, followed by an actual slip by Connery resulting in a slight injury to his backside

The exchange: (Me) Are you OK? Did you hurt your butt, Connery? Does it have a crack in it now? (Connery) Mom, there are no ducks in my butt.

Oh, and note the intentional use of "Mom". About a week ago, Connery started experimenting with Mom and Dad rather than Mommy and Daddy. He sounds to all the world like a jaded teenager when he addresses us now. I hate it and try at every opportunity to reinforce Mommy and Daddy. It will be a losing battle, I'm sure.

From old to ancient

Things that make you feel old?

Your "baby" brother hitting the quarter-century mark.

Things that make you feel ancient?

Your "baby" brother getting engaged!

Seriously, though, I'm thrilled that Alex and Kari are planning to be married. I haven't yet gotten to spend a lot of time with Kari and Hannah, but the time we have had together has been good. Hannah and Connery get along really well, and I love seeing how happy Alex and Kari are together. I'm so happy for the three of them!

You say you wanna write to South Dakota too?

I knew you would. Here is the relevant contact info:

Mr. James D. Hagen, Secretary
South Dakota Department of Tourism and State Development
711 East Wells Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-3369

Governor Mike Rounds (R--don't forget. don't ever forget)
Office of the Governor
500 E. Capitol Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501

There are email addresses, but in this day and age, the real impact will be felt if you take the time to put inkjet to paper and stamp to envelope, folks.

I'm going to be printing up my little missive and sending it along. I've drafted a different letter for the tourism board, which I'll post below.

There must be consequences. Please, especially, take note of the loathesome, perverse quotation by one of the state's legislators in the letter below. There's a special little corner of hell waiting for him.

Dear Mr. Hagen:

As a Montana resident, I have spent many happy vacation days traversing your fair state of South Dakota. The summer that my husband and I got married, we traveled to the Badlands, Mt. Rushmore, the Crazy Horse memorial, and even the Corn Palace. In each case we were welcomed by friendly people, spectacular scenery, and warm hospitality. We stayed several nights in different South Dakota towns, and we remember the trip very fondly. Once we had our son in 2003, we talked about how great it would be to be able to take him back to those spots when he got a little older.

I am sorry that South Dakota’s legislature and governor have now made it impossible for me to return to the state. I cannot in good conscience spend money or time in a state that believes that women are nothing more than wombs on legs to be forced to carry to term pregnancies that may have been the result of rape or incest or may result in profound damage to a woman’s health or future fertility.

Moreover, I do not want to spend time in a state that would elect Bill Napoli to any office, after his description of the circumstances under which abortion should be allowed in the case of rape or incest. Speaking on NewsHour, Mr. Napoli said, “A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

I cannot in any way support a state with officials who hold such disgusting beliefs. A woman is more than her reproductive organs, but it is clear that South Dakotans do not agree.

I look forward to welcoming the women of South Dakota who may require abortion services to Montana for those procedures. May they find the compassion here that is so lacking in their own state.

South Dakota goes all American Taliban on our asses

I can't believe the South Dakota governor signed this horrible law. Are those legislators really saying that a rape victim who is five weeks along should be forced to carry her pregnancy to term? That a woman whose baby is found to be horribly deformed and won't live past birth should risk her future fertility and mental health to continue the pregnancy? That a young incest survivor should be forced to bear her own half-sister or -brother? Or, indeed, that a woman whose birth control fails should be given the "punishment" of a baby to care for?

Here's what I sent to Herr Governor Rounds (R):

"I certainly recognize the multiplicity of views on the question of abortion. However, the bottom line remains that if a woman cannot control when and if she has a child, she cannot control any other aspect of her life.

When pregnancy happens for the right reasons, it is a joyous, miraculous event. When it happens for the wrong reasons, it is devastating. The fact is that unplanned pregnancies happen for all kinds of reasons. Birth control fails. Women are raped. Teenagers and young girls are molested. And sometimes even the most wanted pregnancies go terribly wrong. Fetuses can have gross abnormalities that can result in damage to the health and future fertility of the mother.

What South Dakota has implemented is no less than a policy of forced fertility, no different from the single-child policy enforced in China. If a government can tell its citizens when they *must* go through with an unwanted or hopeless pregnancy, then it can just as easily begin to decide which of its citizens *cannot* bear children.

As a mother of a young son and a survivor of a painful miscarriage, I would never presume to know what is in a woman's heart when she makes her choice about whether to have a child. That is between her, her doctor, and her god. The government has no business in that space. As a man, you should be ashamed of yourself for putting into law something you will never have to experience personally."

Making a deal with the devil

This is exactly why I have the "all things unintentionally hilarious" category. Dick Cheney--need I say what has put him in the news most lately--is now lecturing the American public on how we should be saving more for retirement.

You know, Dick, that would be much easier for me to do if I had left politics to work at Halliburton and then returned to politics to line Halliburton's stockholders' pockets. Funny how just having a normal day job doesn't rake in the $15.8 million that it's possible to earn when one becomes chairman and CEO of an "oilfield service" company.

The rest of us might have a harder time, what with health insurance, student loans (now, with extra interest!), rising housing, heating, and transportation costs, credit card debt (all of it self-inflicted, naturally),and, to top it all off, fricking organic milk price hikes. I enjoy paying $4.99 a half gallon to ensure that my baby isn't dosed with the extra hormones and pesticides that Dick Cheney has fought so hard to allow Big Ag to use.

Are there Americans out there who are failing to save for retirement because they are buying collectibles from Thomas Kinkade, painter of schlock? Or because they are blowing their paychecks on Home Shopping Network or bigger flat-screen TVs or razors with five blades? I'm sure there are some people out there who do just that.

But you know what? I think for the vast majority of people, saving can occur only after you've paid for such luxury goods as heat and diapers and car insurance. Americans are "living paycheck to paycheck"--a phrase used derisively in the article--not because they want to but because they have to. I'm not saving as much as I'd like to because the money is not there, and I know I'm not alone.

So, Dick Cheney, you can lecture me about saving for retirement--something that has obviously not been an issue for you, since your retirement brought you right into the Veep's office--right about the time I get to lecture you about hunter's safety.

Have we got a deal?