7-29-09 Wednesday News.indd - The Unger Memorial Library ...

Page 4A - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - Plainview Daily Herald http://www.MyPlainview.com
Plainview Daily Herald
http://www.myplainview.com
Plainview Daily Herald
A Unit of of The the Hearst Corporation
Published afternoons (except Saturday and and Sunnday) Sunday) and Sunday Mornings. Mornings
296-1300 – 820 Broadway P.O. Box 1240 Plainview, Texas 79072
Sandra Aven Kevin Lewis
Publisher Editor
Sandra Aven, Publisher Danny Andrews, Editor
James Thomas, Publisher Emeritus
MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS and NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
“If all printers were determined not to print anything
‘til they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be
very little printed.” – Benjamin Franklin
Letter to the Editor
Speaking out against abortion
To the Editor:
We realize that you don’t
often hear from our pregnancy
center regarding legislative
issues; however, when
there is a concern regarding
the impact on pregnancy
centers, we are eager to inform
you and ask for your
help.
Under the current health
care reform proposal in Congress,
our tax dollars would
be used to pay for abortions.
Abortion advocates are making
the case that abortion is
health care, which couldn’t
be further from the truth. Included
in this health care bill
are the cornerstones of the
so-called Freedom of Choice
Act (FOCA), which would
force virtually every American
into a health plan that
mandates abortion coverage.
We are extremely concerned
about the implications
of what mandated coverage
of abortion in health
care plans would mean for
our pregnancy center. As
you know, pregnancy centers
reach out with hope,
compassion and free practical
support to women facing
a crisis pregnancy. If
abortions are free, abortions
will increase by 33 percent,
according to Planned Parenthood’s
Guttmacher Institute.
Research also indicates that
the marketing of “free services”
at pregnancy centers
is a draw to abortion-vulnerable
women. So, if abortion
is free, how can we continue
to attract this at-risk population
with life-affi rming, free
services?
Secondly, this bill provides
no provision for the rights of
conscience of pro-life health
Mexicans: Stop bowing and speak up
We talk a lot about the
things for which the government
is to blame. In many
cases it’s true, but rarely do
we hear about the responsibility
that the civil society
has in the development of a
country.
In Mexico, we are used
to waiting for “father government”
to give us everything.
I don’t mean to exonerate
the government from
its faults in the execution
of its responsibilities, but
I think it’s true when they
say sa that the people have the
government go they deserve.
By this I mean that we as a
society so have the responsibil-
ity to make our government
serve us and respond to our
needs and petitions, the way
it’s done in some democracies
that better fulfi ll the
meaning of the word “democracy.”
I am sorry to say, but in
Mexico more than a democracy
we have a “partycracy,”
and in order for us to really
transform into a democracy
(a government for the people),
we need to grow as a
civil society and start to validate
our rights, to end societal
fragmentation and start
to know one another and to
join together when we have
common goals in order to
demand and force the government
to serve us the way
we want and deserve.
In this sense we are currently
very far from the
mark.
We don’t know our neighbors.
We are fragmented and
so we have no leverage to do
things.
If we start breaking
this fragmentation,
it means that we
stop being reactive
to a government that
imposes their will
on us and we start
becoming proactive
and elect a government
that will listen
to us.
In Germany, it is
said that the democracy
depends on the “mündige
Bürger”, meaning the
citizens with an opinion and
a voice. In Mexico, only a
third of the population voted
in the past election.
A positive example of the
effect that the civil society
can have was a campaign
in these last elections promoting
the annulment of
the vote as a way to protest
the current state of affairs in
Mexican politics.
If we had a civil society
that had an opinion and a
voice, we could have been
heard because with only 20
percent of the votes annulled
we could have annulled the
election. That is the force of
a united, civil society.
How can we obtain a unifi
ed, civil society?
The fi rst step to become a
democracy is to educate the
people to speak up, make
their rights valid and to teach
them that it’s important to
join other people with similar
opinions because “unity
is strength.”
To achieve this, fi rst we
need to understand that it’s
not by chance that Mexicans
are the way they are. Mexico,
by nature is an obedient
country; as a Catholic
country, we are taught
to obey the infallible
authority of the Pope,
and many years of authoritarian
governments
confi rm this fact.
In my experience in
rural communities, people
are afraid to speak
their mind because they
might say something
“ignorant” or “wrong,”
and it is a diffi cult tendency
to reverse.
An American friend of
mine was horrifi ed when I
explained to him the meaning
of the word “mande”
(which is the natural answer
when you call someone’s attention
in Mexico) means “I
am at your command.” The
problem is not with the attitude
itself but that it has
been exploited over the centuries
by our leaders.
To make it worse, when
people have attempted to
break the mold and tried to
be heard — like in the student
revolt of 1968 — the
authorities crushed them
with all their force (it is
said that the dead were into
the hundreds of thousands).
Thus, like Pavlov dogs, we
have a conditioned refl ex to
avoid “making waves” so
that we don’t get hurt like
the students.
We have to understand
that to be united as a civil society
is not an act that is aggressive
in itself, but it can
be a constructive act without
which we may never become
a democracy. We need
to change from being “bowing”
citizens to free citizens
who can carry the weight of
responsibility and demand
the rights of a democracy.
Moreover, we have to
think if it is indeed a democracy
or some other
kind of government that is
needed.
The Mexican citizens who
are conscious of this need to
think for ourselves and have
to make it our mission to
spread the word so that more
Mexicans can lose the fear
of speaking up.
We need to take into account
that this requires an
effort from us, to break the
inertia. It must no longer be
“the government didn’t give
me,” but “what did I do to
demand and help so that the
government does its part?”
Maybe it’s easier to remain
in the role of the government’s
victims, since we
have rehearsed it so perfectly,
and that way we don’t
need to make the effort; we
can continue to complain
and keep on practicing this
“national sport” where “the
other” is to blame and not
me.
Ask yourselves: Is there
something you can do for
Mexico’s development? If
the answer is yes, you are on
the right track.
It’s better to climb out of
the hole than to furnish it
and keep on living there.
(Karina Eichner attended
the recent Sirolli entrepreneur
retreat at Plainview
Civic Center, hosted by
WesTex Allied Communities.
She lives in Mexico
where she writes a weekly
newspaper column.)
Without posterity, there are no grand designs
Every day, I check a blog
called Marginal Revolution,
which is famous for its erudite
authors, Tyler Cowen
and Alex Tabarrok, and its
intelligent
contributors.
Last week,
one of those
contributors
asked a question
that is
fantastical but
thought-pro-
voking: What
would happen
if a freak solar
event steril-
ized the people on the half
of the earth that happened to
be facing the sun?
If you take an individualistic
view of the world, not
much would happen immediately.
There are millions
of people today who do not
reproduce, and they lead
happy, fulfi lling and productive
lives.
Even after the event, material
conditions would be
exactly the same. People
would still have an incentive
to go to work, pay off
their bills and educate the
children who were already
with us. For 20 years, there
would still be workers fl owing
into the labor force. Immigrants
from the other side
of the earth could eventually
surge into the areas losing
population. If anything, the
mass-sterilization might
reduce the environmental
strain on the planet. People
might focus on living for the
moment, valuing the here
and now.
But, of course, we don’t
lead individualistic lives.
Material conditions do not
drive history. People live in
a compact between the dead,
the living and the unborn,
and the value of the thought
experiment is that it reminds
us of the power posterity
holds over our lives.
If, say, the Western Hemisphere
were sterilized, there
would soon be a cataclysmic
spiritual crisis. Both Judaism
and Christianity are promise-centered
faiths. They
are based on narratives that
lead from Genesis through
progressive revelation to a
glorious culmination.
Believers’ lives have signifi
cance because they and
their kind are part of this
glorious unfolding. Their
faith is suffused with expectation
and hope. If they were
to learn that they were simply
a dead end, they would
feel that God had forsaken
them, that life was without
meaning and purpose.
The secular world would
be shattered, too. Anything
worth doing is the work
of generations. America’s
founders, for example, felt
the eyes of their descendants
upon them. Alexander Hamilton
felt that he was helping
to create a great empire.
Noah Webster composed his
dictionary anticipating that
America would someday
have 300 million inhabitants,
even though at the time
it only had 6 million.
These people undertook
their grand projects because
they were building for their
descendants. They were motivated
by their hunger for
immortal fame.
Without posterity, there
are no grand designs. There
are no high ambitions. Politics
becomes insignifi cant.
Even words like justice lose
meaning because everything
gets reduced to the narrow
qualities of the here and
now.
If people knew that their
nation, group and family
were doomed to perish,
they would build no lasting
buildings. They would not
strive to start new companies.
They wouldn’t concern
themselves with the preservation
of the environment.
They wouldn’t save or invest.
There would be a radical
increase in individual autonomy.
Not sacrifi cing for
their own society’s children,
people would themselves
become children, basing
their lives on pleasure and
ease instead of meanings to
be fulfi lled.
Some people might try to
perpetuate their society by
recruiting people from the
fertile half of the earth. But
that wouldn’t work. Immigration
is the painful process
of leaving behind one culture
and way of living so that
your children and children’s
children can enjoy a different
future. No one would
be willing to undertake that
traumatic process in order to
move from a society that was
reproducing to a society that
was fading. There wouldn’t
be the generations required
to assimilate immigrants.
A sterile culture could not
thrive and, thus, could not
inspire assimilation.
Instead there would be
brutal division between those
with the power to possess
the future and those without.
If millions of immigrants
were brought over, they
would populate the buildings
but not perpetuate the
culture. They wouldn’t be
like current immigrants because
they wouldn’t be joining
a common project, but
displacing it. There would
be no sense of peoplehood,
none of the untaught affections
of those who are part
of an organic social unit that
shares the same destiny.
Within weeks, in other
words, everything would
break down and society
would be unrecognizable.
The scenario is unrelievedly
grim. An individual
who does not have children
still contributes fully to the
future of society. But when
a society doesn’t reproduce,
there is nothing left to contribute
to.
But, of course, that’s the
beauty of this odd question.
There are no sterilizing
sunspots. Instead, we are
blessed with the disciplining
power of our posterity. We
rely on this strong, invisible
and unacknowledged force.
(David Brooks is a columnist
for the New York Times
News Service.)
Of cyclopses, sideshows and America’s newsman Walter Conkrite
WACO — The fi rst time
TV regularly shared Walter
Cronkite’s history-changing
voice, he was a clumsylooking
bystander.
Not his fault. Everything
about CBS’s “You Are
There” was clunky. In black
and white, it took us to relive
moments in history on
sets every bit as authentic as
Flash Gordon’s spaceship.
When Cronkite became
America’s preeminent
newsman and watched our
government argue that victory
was around the corner
in Vietnam, he may have
thought he was back in an-
Mallard Fillmore
care professionals. If these
rights are trumped, pro-life
individuals will leave or
simply not enter the fi eld of
medicine.
The current bill also threatens
to trump many state prolife
laws that protect women
and the unborn. If such laws,
like 24-hour waiting periods,
are superseded by an abortion
mandate, that precious
window of time that pregnancy
centers have to reach
women with resources, information
and support will
be lost.
Finally, we anticipate that
this bill would greatly increase
abortions, and if this
happens, just consider the
vast number of women and
men who will need postabortion
healing.
So, what can you do to
help?
1. Pray!
2. E-mail and call your
representatives and two senators
— today! Visit www.
house.gov to fi nd your representative’s
contact information,
and www.senate.
gov for your senators’ contact
information. For phone
calls, urge the following:
“As a constituent, I urge
you to ensure that language
is included in any health
care reform proposal or bill
to specifi cally exclude abortion.”
3. Spread the word to
friends, family and co-workers.
Thank you so much for
your support, prayers and
partnership.
SuNell Pyeatt
Executive Director, Compassionate
Care Pregnancy
Center
Letters to the Editor should be addressed to: The
Plainview Daily Herald, Attn.: Kevin Lewis, P.O. Box
1240, Plainview, TX 79072; or by e-mail: kwlewis@
hearstnp.com
All submissions should include the writer’s name, address
and daytime phone number. We will not publish
street address, e-mail address or phone number.
Submissions normally are limited to one per person
per month.
All letters are subject to editing for length, content,
grammar, punctuation, etc.
other bad re-creation of history
— French, or British,
maybe.
For years the continuing
escalation there had barely
been challenged by anyone,
least of all media seeing it
all through the one eye of
our government’s cyclops
lens.
Then Cronkite went there
in 1968 and observed this
with two eyes:
“We have been too often
disappointed by the optimism
of the American leaders,
both in Vietnam and
Washington, to have faith
any longer in the silver lin-
OPINION
David
Brooks
ings they fi nd in the darkest
clouds ...
“For it seems now more
certain than ever that the
bloody experience of Vietnam
is to end in a stalemate
... To say that we are closer
to victory today is to believe,
in the face of the evidence,
the optimists who have been
wrong in the past.”
Cronkite’s commentary on
that day is much-discussed.
Some criticized him for
crossing the line of reporter
into pundit.
My question: Was it commentary,
or was it reporting
of the highest form?
Karina
Eichner
You know, the reporting
that conveys
truth.
We are too accepting
of reporting that simply
conveys what people in
power want to convey,
even if juxtaposed by
a response to those on
the outs.
When does it become
reporting for
someone on the scene
to tell what he or she sees
without shadings supplied
by those whose political
future is vested in the perception?
Glenn Greenwald, writing
for Salon.com, contrasts
Cronkite with the pack journalists
of today, feeding off
unquestioned power with
unquestioning authority, relying
solely on the military
and hired military experts
to tell the story of events in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Cronkite’s best moment
was when he did exactly
that which the modern journalist
today insists (he or
she) must not ever do —
directly contradict claims
John
Young
from government
and military offi cials
and suggest that such
claims should not be
believed.”
But being manipulated
by the government
is only part of
the problem. Another
is being cowed into
treating fringe attitudes
and hunches as
equal to those having
the weight of evidence.
Hence we have reporting
where the certainty about
global warming over the
last century is countered
by industry-funded seeds
of doubt. Giving equitable
treatment to both is to present
“balanced coverage.”
Really? Or is this just truth
with time allotted for a corporate
dissembling?
In Texas, when it comes
to approving science textbooks,
there always seems to
be a debate about evolution.
That’s odd, because when
it’s the scientists discussing
it, they’re not debating it.
They’re simply understanding
it.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Page 4A
Somehow an anti-science
constituency has positioned
itself to be the “other side”
for the purpose of scholastic
balance. How so? Please defi
ne “scholastic.”
We see this on cable television
— someone who
doesn’t know science saying
that science has it wrong,
and serving as the “other
side” for “balance.” Generally,
this is like a slug worm
riding on the scales opposite
a nuclear submarine.
The fallacies of his claims
are immaterial. That person
knows that gut feelings and
self-serving predispositions
have market value.
Somehow the practice
of reporting the news has
ceased being a search for
truth. It has become a service
industry for vested interests
and popular passions.
Cronkite reported what
he saw with his own eyes.
Talk about crossing the line.
Guilty as charged.
(John Young writes for
the Waco Tribune-Herald.
Contact him at jyoung@
wacotrib.com.)