There are no dull moments if you’re paying attention

The famous Depression Era comedian/cowboy, Will Rogers, once told a story about a mountain lion who, after eating an entire bull, felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral to Mr. Rogers’ story is that when you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.

     I thought of this story while watching the now-former governor of the state of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, passionately addressing the assembled state legislature of that state conducting impeachment proceedings against him. The more this man talked, the stronger the urge became to tell him to shut up.

     It has been editorialized that the impeachment was “a sad day for the State of Illinois,” but I disagree. I think  it was an extremely proud day for that state and everyone who calls it home. Their elected state officials actually stood up for and defended the rights and integrity of all Illinois citizens by removing this creep from office. In doing so, the members of the Illinois State Legislature join the rare politicians who will break ranks with their “brethren” and do what is right and in the best interests of the people they were elected to represent.

     Did they have a choice? Certainly, they could have stonewalled the situation and saved their political party a lot of embarrassment, now and in the future, by being typical politicians. But they didn’t. Without hesitation, they removed the worst elected official ever exposed since Richard Nixon and prepared their state to get on with the business of dealing with this economy. Dishonesty practiced by elected officials should not and cannot be tolerated on any level. Just a little bribe or a little white lie and the stage is set for more and bigger betrayals of public trust. Our hats should be off to the Illinois State Legislature, as we wonder if our legislature, Board of Supervisors or Board of Aldermen would be so courageous on our behalf.

    Just as I was ready to find something more intellectually challenging to do, my attention was caught by a story about a single, unwed mother of six children, who has been taking fertility drugs, recently delivering eight babies at a hospital in California.

     Eight babies? I’m not a doctor, but I can tell you that this is a packaging accomplishment I’m not sure I understand or want to understand. It’s overwhelming to try and figure out who to worry about the most, the mother or the eight little babies. I guess you just have to pray for all nine of them and have faith that only God understands why anyone who is unmarried, living at home and already has six  children would take a fertility drug and bring eight more children into the world.

     Further discussion into this phenomenal birthing included some questions about the ethics and responsibility of any physician who would prescribe and administer a fertility drug to an unmarried, unemployed parent of six children who lives at home. Since the medical profession pretty much regulate themselves in terms of ethics and responsibility, it seems odd there has been no explanations or comments, thus far.

     While the details of the medical history of this woman are obviously personal and private, it does seem appropriate that the curious public, since they are going to have to continue to take care of this now over-doubled in size family financially, probably for life, should get some sort of a justification for this utter breach of medical responsibility. Perhaps in the future, doctors who dabble in fertility drugs and unmarried patients with a number of children in the household above the national average, should be required to support such patients and their offspring, including those the fertility drugs produce for as long as they need it.

     Is it just me or would anyone else find it more acceptable that any monies being spent on fertility drug research be reinvested into  cancer research or diabetes cures or drugs to help us deal with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases? 

     One of the hang-ups between Democrats and Republicans about the bailout legislation is a provision to allocate some of the recovery money to the National Park Service. The Republican argument is that such money would be a waste, since recovering our National Parks from eight years of budget cuts and neglect wouldn’t create any jobs or cut taxes for big business.

     I have a bad habit of sometimes talking back to the tv when they are interviewing some of the complete idiots we have making decisions for us in Washington. The Senate Minority Leader had just made a dumb statement about the National Parks and I was loudly reminding him that while he and his cronies can go to Europe and the Orient on vacations, the rest of us go to and enjoy the National Parks, when my wife walked in and just shook her head.

     My message to the deaf ears of a tv report is that yes, we are interested in improving and fixing our National Parks, you bet we are. It may end up being the only benefit we receive out of the entire bailout package while the CEO’s will probably get trips to the Cayman Islands.