Deej Today

Happy Birthday

2006-02-22T16:46:00.000-06:00

Dear Rick,

Today is your 21st birthday, and Teddy's 20th. I wish you were here so we could celebrate it.

I miss you so much. You'll never know just how much. You don't know the hole you left in my soul.

I try to be happy for you--happy you're no longer in pain, no longer ill, no longer having to fight for your life. I just wish you could be all those things, but still be here. With me. With your Mom.

They say that in time, I'll feel better. So far, time has only served to make things worse. So far, absence has made my heart grow fonder. You're out of sight, but not at all out of mind.

I miss your smile. I miss your laugh. I miss your sense of humor. I miss your passion. I miss your goodness. I miss the way you kidded around with everyone--especially Brandt. I miss harassing you about your stupid Cubs and Bears. I miss the way you loved me. I miss holding your hand in the way we always did. I miss rubbing your head. I miss hearing you sing. I miss everything about you.

I want you back. I want my baby back. I just want you back.

All my love,

Mom

'Tis a Puzzlement

2006-02-06T08:30:00.000-06:00

I was listening to Rep. Ray LaHood this morning on Jim Leach's radio program, and one of the issues he addressed was Iran's development of nuclear weapons. I will never understand where we as a nation get off telling other soverign countries how they can or cannot defend themselves. Who are we to insist that any country--Iran, Iraq or Fiji--not defend herself?

What criteria do we use to decide who we will and will not allow to have a national defense? And most of all, where do we get the moral authority to determine other countries' fates?

If other nations tried to stop us from defending ourselves, we'd arm ourselves more fully than we already are. If other nations tried to get us to destroy all our nuclear weapons, we'd create more and more dangerous and powerful ones. Why should we expect anything other than that same response when we try to force our desires on sovereign nations?

We are so hypocritical. Do we try to block "rogue states" from possessing nukes because we're afraid they might actually use them? If so, why is it OK for us to use these weapons, but not for anyone else to? We are, after all, the only nation in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons on our enemy. Why was that OK, but it's not OK for anyone else? Who in the hell do we think we are?

If we are capable of blowing our enemies off the face of the earth--which we are; and if we use that threat to try to control our enemies' behavior--which we do; then why can't our enemies respond in kind? Why should they not be able to defend themselves effectively against any form of attack, including nuclear?

I don't get it.

When I Grow Up

2006-01-28T08:47:00.000-06:00

In a few short months, I'll turn the half-century mark. I guess it's midlife crisis time, but seriously, what have I accomplished these past fifty years?

I've raised three great kids, though one died last year. I've been married to the same man for half my life. I plan to be with him the rest of it as well. And I love him more than I ever dreamed possible when I was young and stupid and married him 25 years ago.

The marriage, the kids, great accomplishments? I think so. But what else have I done?

My "career" hasn't been anything to write home about. Or even to blog about. I've done retail since I was 18. I currently work in a small, family owned art gallery. I like the work, love the people, but the pay's not much and there are no benefits. I didn't go to college until I was 38. Though I graduated with a perfect 4.0, my major was music, and I have only an AA degree. So professionally, I can't do anything with my college training.

I suck at office work. All those papers and forms and such are so bothersome. The things I do well aren't very marketable. Or maybe I just don't have the drive and ambition to make them that way.

I love to talk. I love to talk to groups. I write well when I sit down and really write--not that you can tell that from this blog. But to make money at those things, I'd have to have something about which to talk and write. That would require more schooling, which isn't entirely out of the question. It would just be hard finding the time to get back there.

A lot to mull over this 50th year of my life.

Kia Pet

2006-01-25T20:11:00.000-06:00

I bought a car Monday. It's the first new car I've bought in twenty years. The last new new car I bought was in 1986, and it was a Hyundai. Monday, I bought a 2006 Kia Spectra. It's deep midnight blue and has a five speed manual transmission.

I like manual transmissions. They make you feel like you're actually driving. They offer a sense of control that sissy automatics don't. They're much better on snow and ice--not that we've had much of those this winter. But with a ten year bumper to bumper warranty, I'm sure snow and ice will come into play at some point during the life of the car.

My old car--a 1991 Mercury Topaz--is on itslast leg. The transmission is about to blow, the brakes are shot, the car squeaks, the suspension is on its way out, and something smells like it's burning whenever the engine is on. But hey, it's fifteen years old. It's time to put it out to pasture.

So I've named the car, "Kia Pet". My boss gave me the idea. I've applied for a license plate that says "Kia Pet 1". It's a great little car. It runs well; it's quiet; the emergency brake works, so I can park on hills again. It still smells new.

Kia Pet doesn't quite feel like mine yet. But I'm quickly getting attached to her. She's my little car. She's my little Kia Pet.

Sad day in television

2006-01-22T20:55:00.000-06:00

I just got finished watching tonight's episode of "The West Wing". Then I came to the computer and signed on and discovered that NBC (Nincompoop Broadcasting Company) is CANCELLING "The West Wing" after this season. This show is a million times better than that stupid "Commander in Chief"--a show through which I've never been able to sit for an entire episode. Geena Davis is no president. Any cast memeber on WW would be a better prez than Davis.

WW is television at its finest. It's thoughtful, insightful, entertaining, humorous. All problems don't resolve themselves in sixty minutes. Some are never solved. I'll never understand how people can be glued to the likes of Donald Trump or all those stupid single people who try to find sex in out-of-the-way palaces. And yes, sex is what they're looking for; not love. Really now. How many of you found the love of your life by competing with a couple dozen other people for the same person and spending months in secluded, elaborate hide-aways going on expensive outings that neither one of you had to pay for?

May 14th will be a sad day in television. "West Wing," I will miss you.

Ne wYear

2006-01-02T08:48:00.000-06:00

New year. New focus. New ventures. New way of life.

Why am I not looking forward to it?

Some may say that I should be glad, even excited, that this new year will not be spent primarily in hospitals and on I55 North headed to Chicago for Rick's medical treatments. Some may say I should be thrilled that John and I can plan things again. Little things. Like going out to movies or dinner.

Yes, those are great things to have happen. But the bottom line is that those things are happening because Rick is gone. They'd mean so much more if they were possible because Rick were alive and well and cured.

New year without my Richard. New focus not on Richard. New ventures without Richard. New way of life--a life without Richard.

Big whoop.

It's been awhile

2005-12-16T08:56:00.000-06:00

It's been a bit since I've blogged. I don't know how people find time to do this every day. Things are very hectic, as is typical for this time of year. It's made worse by the fact that I've chosen this week to repaint my bedroom and get new furniture. Probably not the greatest planning, but it's our Christmas gift to each other.

This is our first Christmas without Rick. It sucks. I just want it to be over. Not that things will really be any better after the holidays. I'll still miss him horribly. I'll still feel a huge hole in my soul. I will still give anything to have him back. But I still want this whole holiday crap to be gone. Maybe next year will be better, but I'm not holding my breath.

Rick loved Christmas. He was always the first one up Christmas morning and couldn't understand how his brothers could sleep so late on such a glorious day. We're doing things a bit differently this year. Some would say we should go about the holidays like normal. But the truth is, it's NOT normal. Rick is dead. He won't be here phyisically to celebrate with us. It's unlike any Christmas we've ever had. Trying to act normal and like nothing has happened is just stupid, if you ask me.

So we'll grin and bear it. And be grateful when it's January.

One Little Ad

2005-11-04T10:12:00.000-06:00

I have been battling this week with Catholic Times--the Springfield diocesan newspaper. Several weeks ago, they announced that they were running a special issue to coincide with "Priesthood Sunday"; the last Sunday in October. They invited parishes, individuals and organizations to buy ads thanking their favorite priests for their service. These are purchased ads, mind you. Not letters to the editor or opinion columns.

So I bought an ad. The ad stated:

To my favorite priests--
Brenda Flesch and Mary Keldermans--
Thank you for your ministry to me.

To be honest, I expected that the newspaper would find that ad unacceptable and just send my check back. But that's not what they did. Instead, they ran the ad, but with a change in the copy. Now remember, this was a paid advertisement. Paid ads cannot be changed without the consent of the advertiser. They didn't even ask for my approval. They just changed the ad. This is how the ad appeared:

To my favorite priests and (emphasis added)
Brenda Flesch and Mary Keldermans.
Thank you for your ministry to me.

Needless to say, the addition of the word "and" totally changed the meaning of the ad. So there were some e-mails sent back and forth over the next few days. They follow in the order they were sent. I think they'll speak for themselves.

Subj:
Ad changed
Date:
10/29/05 7:18:38 AM Central Standard Time
From:
To:
pruot@dio.org
CC:
Ms. Ruot,I saw the ad that I placed in this week's CT, and I am very upset about it. You changed the ad copy without even seeking my approval, much less receiving it. The copy I sent you stated (and I kept a copy for myself, so I know this is what you received):

To my favorite priests--Brenda Flesch and Mary Keldermans--Thank you for your ministry to me.

This is how the ad actually appeared:

To my favorite priests and (emphasis added) Brenda Flesch and Mary Keldermans. Thank you for your ministry to me.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that my ad and the one you printed have two distinctly different meanings. I was not thanking any officially sanctioned priests of the Catholic Church. I was thanking those people who are priests to me every day of my life. You had no right to change that ad copy without my consent. Pure and simple. This was not a letter to the editor or an opinion column that is subject to editing. It was a PAID ADVERTISEMENT. I did not get what I paid for. Therefore, I demand that you do one of two things--run the ad this week as written (which is my preference); or take the money I sent you and send a donation to:
Women-Church Convergencec/o Bridget Mary Meehan5856 Glen Forest DriveFalls Church, VA 22041Phone / fax : 703-671-1972or 703-283-2929 (cell) email address: sofiabmm@aol.com
What you did was unethical in so many ways. I expect more from a religious publication.

Subj: RE: Ad changed Date: 10/31/2005 9:40:05 AM Central Standard Time From: PRuot@dio.org To: Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Dee

We received your email concerning your ad. We will be refunding your money. Please look for your check in the mail. Thanks and have a great day.

Catholic Times

Subj: Re: Ad changed Date: 10/31/2005 10:09:31 AM Central Standard Time From: To: PRuot@dio.org CC:

Ms Rout,

I received your email. I'd rather have you reprint the ad as written. If you won't do that, then I'd like an explanation as to why you won't. I'd also like to know why you changed the ad in the first place without even consulting me. I think I deserve to know the reasons behind both decisions.

Deej (not Dee)

Subj: Your Ad Date: 10/31/2005 10:34:46 AM Central Standard Time From: KSass@dio.org To: CC: PRuot@dio.org Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Ms. Dambrauskas:

My name is Kathie Sass; I am editor of Catholic Times. I have received copies of your correspondence from my ad manager, Paula Ruot. Ms. Dambrauskas, Priesthood Sunday was established to support those in ordained ministry in the church -- our priests. As the official newspaper of the diocese, we exercise a teaching function and have a responsibility to support the teachings of the church. Your ad as it was originally written may have caused confusion about the sacrament of orders and the doctrine of the church on the nature of the ordained ministry.

I regret that we cannot publish your ad as written. Your ad was changed at the last minute because one of our proofreaders did not understand your apparent intent and inserted the change so that the text more closely conformed to church teaching. I understand that the version we published was not what you intended and we will be happy to refund your money.

Kathie Sass
Editor

Subj:
Ad
Date:
11/1/05 3:16:50 PM Central Standard Time
From:
To:
ksass@dio.org
CC:
Dear Ms. Sass,

I received your e-mail and I thank you for responding. I must admit, however, that I am puzzled by your response.

In your e-mail to me, you wrote, "Your ad as it was originally written may have caused confusion about the sacrament of orders and the doctrine of the church on the nature of the ordained ministry." Who would be confused? Do you honestly believe that printing my ad would cause an avalanche of phone calls, letters, e-mails and faxes to your office from confused people asking when it was, exactly, that the church started ordaining sexually active women? Do you honestly believe the Catholic populace of the Springfield diocese to be that stupid? That feeble minded? Could you be any more insulting to your readers?

But for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that my influence truly is that vast and incredible. What's wrong with confusion?

Confusion leads to wonder. To questioning. To discussion. To dialog. To the opening of minds. To understanding. To truth. The ones in this world who annoy me most are the ones who are never confused about anything. They know everything there is to know. They need not ask questions, for they have all the answers.

You say Catholic Times has "a teaching function and...a responsibility to support the teachings of the church." Don't you rather have a responsibility to support the truth? Church teaching and truth are not always the same. The church used to teach that the sun revolved around the earth, and persecuted Galileo for daring to say otherwise. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't exactly our finest hour. And the church ignored the evil of pedophile priests for generations.
The church teaches us that we need to acknowledge when we are wrong and work to change wrong behavior, wrong ways of thinking, wrong hearts. And rightfully so. However, the church must lead by example and do the same.

I would have respected you more if you had just been honest about why you changed my ad. Rather than insult the intelligence of area Catholics, you should have said:

Dear Mrs. Dambrauskas,We changed your ad because the church teaches that women cannot be ordained. They are not worthy. To suggest that women truly do posses priestly qualities is blasphemous. Catholic Times will not print heresy. Now stop thinking for yourself and go back and submit yourself totally to your husband, have one child after another until your uterus either dries up or falls out, and beg God for His forgiveness for such a grievous sin.

That, Ms. Sass, would have been honest. It's just so incredible to me that the Catholic Church feels so threatened by one, little ad.

Note: It's now Friday, Nov 4, and I still have not received this promised refund check.

Harriet Miers

2005-10-28T09:13:00.000-05:00

I never thought Bush could do it, but he came up with a consensus nominee for the Supreme Court--Harriet Miers. No one wants her. And so now, she's gone. What scares me most about this is what next? Or should I say, who next?

We're headed for a full blown theocracy in this country. Who needs democracy when God is in charge? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that if we continue on the road we're on, it won't be long before the government starts burning crosses into our arms. It's not enough, you see, to believe in some sort of supreme being. The theocrats want their Christian God to be in charge. No Yahweh. No Allah. No Buddha. No Mother Earth. Just Jesus. The theocrats will not be satisfied until all synagogues, mosques, temples and any other non-Christian houses of worship are burned to the ground. These people are dangerous.

Weddings

2005-10-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

I know there are greater problems in the world right now, but weddings make me crazy.

I went to my nephew's wedding last weekend. And it was nice enough, I guess. But there are things that just drive me nuts about these events.

First, I can't stand it when the groom and groomsmen stand at the front of the church while the bride and bridesmaids have to walk down the aisle. It looks like the guys are standing up there in the front of the church saying, "Hey baby, come here. I'm waitin' on ya." Why can't they walk down the aisle together?

The thing that I hate most, though, is the bride's being given away. I just hate that, and if I hadn't been the first one in my family to get married, I never would have allowed my dad to give me away. But to do so would have caused such a fight that at the time I didn't think it was worth it. And I have lived to regret that decision.

Daughters are not pieces of property to be given away like a piece of land or a herd of cattle. And yet that is exactly where this practice of giving daughters away came from--the days when daughters were property. No one gave me to my husband. I gave myself to him. I think parents should be seated in a prominent manner, and maybe even take part in the ceremony if that's what they want to do. But the bride and groom should walk down the aisle together. They are the ones giving themselves to each other.

And brides--STOP WEARING THOSE DAMN VEILS OVER YOU FACES!!!!

Creationism--Call it what it is

2005-10-18T09:52:00.000-05:00

Try though I may, I just cannot understand how anyone with even half a brain can believe in creationism. (I refuse to use the code phrase that creationism use to try to convince us that they're not creationists.) I attended a concert by Lewis Black over the weekend, and he had something to say on the matter that was just perfect and priceless.

Black, who is Jewish, admonished Christians by pointing out that "their book" (what Christians call the "Old Testament") wasn't good enough for them. They (Christians) got their own book with a whole new set of characters. So how DARE they attempt to interpret the Jewish book. Interpret the christian books all they want, but keep out of the Jewish scriptures.

He went on to say, "There's something you need to know about us Jews. We like to tell STORIES!!! It was perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Genesis is a story. Genesis is lots of stories. Genesis has two separate, distinct, differing accounts of the creation story--further proof that it's a STORY. Why creationists can't understand that it is certainly within God's power to have created an evolutionary process, I don't know. Isn't it blasphemous to believe there's something outside God's abilities? That there's something God can't do? Sounds blasphemous to me.

We have to keep religion in houses of worship and within our own homes. Churches can teach, and people can believe that a kumquat created the universe for all I care. Just don't try to teach that to my kids.

In a side note, Happy Birthday Greg Brandt. See you tomorrow for lunch.

Why Religion and Government Don't Mix

2005-10-17T09:56:00.000-05:00

Following is a wonderful, yet unsettling, article by Bill Moyers. He wrote it back in January, but it is so important. And it is so true. And why people aren't more worked up about this, I'll never know.

All we need to do is look at countries that have state religions to see where we are headed if the radical Christian right has its way. But I'll let Bill Moyers speak to this. It's a little long, but definitely worth reading.

There Is No Tomorrow
By Bill Moyers
The Star Tribune
30 January 2005

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total and more since the election - are backed by the religious right.

Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market? "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:

* That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.
* That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
* That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
* That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
* That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to our moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"

I see it feelingly.

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

The Beginning

2005-10-13T10:07:00.000-05:00

Hi everyone. Welcome to Deej Today. I have no idea what I'll be saying on this thing as time goes on. I guess you'll just have to check back every now and then to find out.

I am a self-described bleeding heart liberal, pacifist, feminist purist. More on those philosophies later.

I love the St. Louis Cardinals and the St. Louis Rams. I prefer pearls to diamonds. Universal healthcare is a passion of mine.

I welcome comments, but don't expect me to necessarily agree with anything you say. But don't take disagreements personally. I'm used to folks disagreeing with me. It's just opinions, folks.

Six months later, I still miss you Rick.

Deej