Disaster exercise brings out the "VICTIM" in me?

A funny thing happened on the way to today: Yesterday, I was a movie-extra … Well, not exactly in a movie, but a filmed presentation … a series of digital stills that will likely be overlaid to create the illusion of a larger group of participants and … but that's not really important here …

The interesting part of it, if there was one, was that I got a chance to hang out with a lot of young college students and nurses (in and out of uniform) -- most of whom (including me) had been dressed in pastel clothes bought from Goodwill, made up with splotches of red, sugar-based "dust" and various black smudgings, and made to look like "disaster victims" for the making of a training exercise for nurses and other healthcare practitioners.

The purpose of all of this was to simulate the results of a Weapons of Mass Destruction terrorist bombing (with a "dirty bomb") in a major city mall and office complex. I have to admit, I have no idea who was sponsoring this, although I understand it is not the first time they have done this exercise. I presume it was some sort of Vanderbilt Medical Center exercise, since the whole shoot took place in one of their parking lots. All I really know is I spent about an hour picking out and trying on clothes, being made up, getting those clothes torn and "bloodied" in places with corn syrup and red food coloring, and then waiting around for further instructions.

I had originally been led to believe the shoot would require those of us playing the "victims" only to "play dead" and lie still; I found out differently once we finally got started. Instead of a set scene, the camera work mainly involved shooting stills of one group of ten at a time, and then more being added as the time progressed, staggering and limping across the parking lot, as though we were both severely injured and somehow forgetful of where we had parked our respective cars. (For me, this required a little "method acting" since I not only had not driven to the site, but had not owned a vehicle for the past two years and more, and had hardly even driven a rental during the interim. But I digress…) The lone photographer was shooting all of this, at long range and then very close up, as we approached and passed him by, nearly walking on him in some cases as he sprawled among the rushing mob.

We repeated takes, at least on the initial approach, at least a half-dozen times. Then the second group of ten joined us, and we did it all over again, with the groups moving forward in slightly different directions. Finally the third group was called over, and all three clumps went through their paces. (By now, several of the young women from my group, the initial one, were experimenting with different motivations, and one had even managed to fall down in a heap in the middle of the pavement, at least once during each pass. Nothing like a bunch of nursing students with delusions of Broadway …)

Then the whole group gathered at an intermediate point and proceeded to stumble slowly forward, only a few steps this time, as a half-dozen (maybe fewer) actual nurses (well, at least they were dressed that way) merged on the throng, each well armed with gauze pad and stethoscope, and began to simulate some impression of "first aid" (No, not triage; that would have required much more attention to detail: My decrepit looking carcass, for example, complete with what appeared to be either severe sharapnel hits or actual bullet-holes in my shoulder, stomach and right knee, passed by without the least bit of nursing notice on each of at least a dozen takes from this position.). A couple of the self-styled wits in the crowd cried out, "Oh don't worry. I have GAUZE!"

And then there was suddenly the call of "one more take and we are done" and then it was over with. We walked (normally this time) back to the trailer, wiped the schmootz off our faces, necks and shoulders, changed one at a time in the little bathroom stall, and headed home, after being rewarded with a gift certificate to a "local" mall. (In my case, still having no vehicle, I'm not sure what to do with it. That local mall is about 30 miles away!)

As I said before, I really don't know who was behind all of this, and have not had occasion to find out, so I haven't. I didn't even know I was going to try to write about this until It did seem rather strange, to be going through all of this just for some still photos and a simulation first-contact with the healthcare folks, but what do I know? Maybe this kind of visual imagery provokes more frank discussion about how a health practitioner, faced with a potential catastrophe like this, is supposed to behave and perform, within a pain-wracked cluster of people in need. What do I know?

All I do know is, I got some sunshine, fresh air and exercise; some time away from this screen, chair and keyboard … and a gift certificate I might yet find a use for.

Pope would "thought police" seminary wannabes

It takes a lot to get me back to this Blog sometimes Between/among writings at Free Market News (columns and news-story rewrites) pieces for Rational Review and other libertarian sites, occasional freelance gigs outside the liberty watch, daily chats on yahoo lists ... and general correspondence with friends ... I cover most of the waterfront already in other venues.

But today's Washington Times had a story that just crossed over the line for me: According to the story, Pope Benedict XVI is about to issue "a Vatican 'instruction' ... forbidding even celibate homosexuals from entering seminary."

The first question that comes to mind is, how will he know? Has His Holiness somehow brought clairvoyance along with his other attributes? And will he be thus required to preside over every entrance-interview for every man seeking to join a priesthood, or are his ESP powers somehow transferable? Teh only way to know what is truly in someone's mind is to either be that person, or somehow read that mind! (This is one thing I have always liked about Judaism, BTW; there is no attempt to evaluate the thoughts of another, only the overt actions. Seems like a pretty wise approach to me.)

Meanwhile, the term "celibate homosexual" is approximately equal to "celibate heterosexual" ... "celibate foot fetishist" ... or "celibate bestialist". The second word in each phrase defines a desire, motivation or "preference" of some sort, while the first word implies that it has either never been expressed openly with actions, or is at least not being so in the present.

But even the word "celibate" is wrong here; that word is is actually defined, not as forswearing sexual contact with another, but as not MARRYING! According to my dictionary it says:

celibate: Etymology: Latin caelibatus, from caelib-, caelebs unmarried
: a person who lives in celibacy

When we go to "celibacy" the results are similar:

celibacy
Pronunciation: 'se-l&-b&-sE
Function: noun

1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

Whoops, there's that "second definition" again, which was obviously added due to the confusion about the first one, and the widespread misuse of the words -- but even then, only half of that applies, even to the tortured definition being proposed by the Pope.

And then there is:

sexual intercourse
Function: noun

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS

2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

Once more, the second definition hits us, However, as Bill Clinton himself has declared, "sexual intercourse" is actually a very limited concept legally, involving genital-to-genital contact -- so I guess oral, manual or other sex (even anal?) doesn't count, either?

I am very confused now ...

***

The attempt to somehow cleanse the Catholic Church of the stain brought on by the actions of a few priests (okay, a fairly large number of them) -- involving not only sexual conduct, but such conduct imposed on children (including many who even I would consider to be "below the age of consent" and therefore incapable of offering it?) ... well, that's somewhat laudable, although a better method would be to utterly renounce these creepoids, arrest them and open the doors to priests (both men and women) who understand there is a line between consensual behavior and coercion -- regardless of what other adults they do or do not relate to on their own time!

Meanwhile, removing the artificial barrier to getting your rocks off by whatever consensual means, might free up a lot of creative energy for spiritual pursuits. (A friend of mine way, way back used to claim that the prohibition of procreation among the "best and brightest" among Catholics had kept that whole culture from advancing as fast as, say, the Jews who encourage their rabbis to "be fruitful and multiply." I never had a good answer for him ...)

But yet another thought: I would also say that this latest attempt to somehow circumscribe even the THOUGHT of engaging in some behavior -- deemed "sinful" by some folks (but only so to libertarians if coercion or "minors" are involved ... and let's separate issues, okay, so we don't digress into a children's rights argument right now?) -- reminds me a lot of back when conservatives, wary of the advances of the movement for civil liberties for gays, lesbians, et alia, predicted "employment quotas" would arise if those advances were not stifled and stopped.

Back then, the obvious question was how one would prove one's orientation, and thereby qualify for the presumed quota. In discussions with several other libertarians, we came (well not really, but we got pretty excited?} to the conclusion that each morning would have to begin with a "fellatio" line (or cunnilingus, as the case may be), whereby each "quotafied" employee proved anew that same-sex oral sex was within his/her personal repertoire. (After all, we said, the only way to prove you are gay is to act the part!) But with the limited definition of "celibate" (and even "sexual intercourse") here ...

like I said I am very confused!

Finally, attempting to proscribe the potential for an action comes from the same mindset that says the possession of a firearm should be banned, since there is always the chance that the weapon might be used for nefarious purposes. To put such "prior restraint" on a mere THOUGHT, is both ludicrous and unenforceable. If this is the best wisdom the new Pope can come up with, the Catholic Church is in much deeper trouble than it thinks!

all for now

The "race card" strategy

Has little or nothing to do with "partisan politics" ...

It is about deflecting criticism of the process that government brings to the table ... under the guise of "race-baiting" and arguing over those charges.

If the Busheviks, as well as the Jesse Jacksons of this mudpit, ever stop pointing fingers at each other (either declaring racism or defending against the charge) ...

AND the so-called Fifth Estate ever starts reporting the REAL horrors behind all of this ...

The public might take a deep breath, notice that it was the utter incompetence of appointed bureaucrats and elected officials (at all levels) that caused the tragedy to continue and worsen by orders of magnitude.

It was not detonated levees, or racist Southern politicians (a black mayor and a Hispanic liberal woman governor ... hmmm!), or even an orchestrated plan ...

It was GOVERNMENT, doing what it always does, getting in the way of people trying to help!

(I haven't posted for a while; it was way past time to do so ...)

Just in case someone is actually reading this ...

I should take the chance to plug one of my other ventures, Progressive News Digest [ http://www.rationalreview.com/pnd ]. This week's edition is first dedicated to wrapping up the off-the-mainstream coverage of the devastation in New Orleans and points north and east, with a 26-item set of blurbs on that subject, from all over the political spectrum. Then it goes on to summarize the week's other top news stories and commentaries. Here is my own "lead" to the e-mail issue:

After the flood ...

Yes, this edition of Progressive News Digest opens with a "special section" -- just in case you need a summary of the week's (and the year's and century's so far?) "top news story": The collision of The Big Easy, with Katrina and its waves. New Orleans has not exactly been "walking on sunshine" this past week, but the biggest tragedy (on top of the very real ones of death, destruction and disruption of normal life) may be how cleverly the authorities are managing to CYA and finger-point at each other, in avoiding responsibility for this very preventable catastrophe. Just for starters:

(1) The diversion of FEMA funds in early 2002 (to "fight terrorism" -- aka subsidize Halliburton and other Iraw War profiteers), funds that were supposed to be used to shore up the levees in the New Orleans delta region, those very same levees that burst and overwhelmed the entire downtown of the city this week.

(2) The conscription for overseas duty of some 35% of the National Guard troops, who could instead have been either preparing for the storm (even in the 3-4 days they had critical warning it WAS coming, or during the past two years while there was still a clear and present danger that one hurricane of sufficient force might devastate the place.

(3) Once things began to get crazy, authorities prevented private citizens from taking matters into their own hands, even to the point of stopping and confiscating buses trying to leave the city limits.

(4) Any citizens, or tourists, attempting to leave the city ... were re-routed to the Stupordome, whose facilities were already breaking down, so that IT has been being evacuated for the past two days.

(5) Meanwhile, in the "looting" category, there have been POLICE officers found engaging in this behavior, while those who are not looting, have walked off the job of enforcing what little law ("martial" as far as the lack of limits on tactics is concerned!) there still is in the city.

I could go on (including the note that citizens who have attempted to HELP the situation are being turned away at GUNPOINT!) but the following links say it better.

For more, visit:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progressivenewsdigest

and while you're there, sign up for FREE weekly issues!