The Mudflats

It’s hard not to comment on today’s news.  Killing in the name of pro-life.

Last year I attended a candlelight vigil at the Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in the memory of innocent people who were gunned down in their church at a Sunday morning children’s program.  They died not because of who they were, but for what they believed.  They were randomly targeted as symbols of liberalism in America.

Adkisson, [the shooter] who had served in the military, said “that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office,” the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson’s house were three books: “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by radio personality Michael Savage; and “Let Freedom Ring,” by political pundit Sean Hannity.

Memorial candles for the victims of the Tennessee Valley UU Church shootings.

It’s a lot to wrap your mind around.

This morning, a doctor and abortion provider was shot to death in front of his wife, in his church.  The suspect in this case, 51-year old Scott Roeder from Kansas, posted this two years ago on an anti-abortion website:

“Bless everyone for attending and praying in May to bring  justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp…”

I hear lots of conservative pundits talking about health care.  They don’t want government, and government beurocracies coming between people and their doctors.  But when it comes to matters of reproductive freedom, they want the government to do exactly that.

They talk about being pro-life, and they believe that a human is a human at the moment of conception.  But if that human grows up, and strays from the path of a good life, and is convicted of a horrible crime, they believe the government should put him to death.

They don’t want the government intruding into their lives, and telling them they can or can’t own a gun.   They don’t want the government  in their house making laws that tell them what to do.  But they want laws taking rights away from people because of what they do in their bedrooms, and whom they choose to love.

Jesus was tortured to death for fear of what he might do.  But the religious right doesn’t seem to mind if people are tortured, even those who may not have done anything yet.  Think of what they might do.  They might go after innocent people.  They may come after us, in our homes, in our churches, just for the way we think.  Just for what we believe.  Just because we love our freedoms.  But when one of their followers comes into a church on a Sunday morning, and kills people in the name of conservative values, there is an awkward silence.  Right wing pundits, and those who need the political support of the conservative “base” are squeamishly non-commital in their opinions about these acts of domestic terrorism.

They like to talk about the constitution.   But when people who don’t think like they do use the first amendment to speak up, they are demonized.  They are called unpatriotic.  They are called ungodly, and immoral.  They are targeted.

And when does the first amendment cross the line and become incitement to violence?  How many more killings like this can we expect in the future?  In the last year, three people are dead, and six others were hospitalized with gunshot wounds, shot  in churches in the name of God, for being who they are, and doing nothing that violated the law.

I am not saying that all conservatives condone these acts.  I’m hoping with all my heart that the vast majority see this for what it is – the work of deeply disturbed individuals that do not reflect Christian values, or conservative values.   But the fact remains that the media has power and influence, and when it is used to fan the flames of hatred, to instill fear, to put people in the middle of a big red bullseye, things like this will happen, and we, as a collective citizenry should not tolerate it.  It is incitement.   And it’s been used for a very long time to divide and mobilize people for political purpose and religious power.

“Why don’t Muslim leaders speak out against terrorism?”   We hear that all the time.  “Silence is consent,” they say.  “If they really felt it was wrong, somebody would say something.”  We’re told that since nobody is denouncing and rejecting these acts of terrorism, it must be condoned.  And we don’t want any wesk-tea, carefully worded evasions.  We need outright condemnation of terrorist acts; acts that are perpetrated to instill fear, to terrorize a group who holds an idealogy they don’t like.  So, where are the right-wing conservative pundits?  What do they think about this?  Silence is consent, right?

[Update]  To see a compilation by Brad Friedman of the alarming reaction on conservative blogs, click HERE.

This is our first cold, windy, rainy weekend of spring.  It reminds me of the entirety of last summer.  And the summer before that.  But I was able to go out and enjoy one of the warm sunny days earlier in the week. 

Things are really greening up, but the grasses and leaves are still not mature yet, so it’s easy to see all the little things that will become hidden under the green as summer progresses.  Fungi and lichens seem to congregate on particular trees for some reason or another, and are easy to spot and photograph now.

The cow parsnip growing on the sides of this trail will stand more than five feet tall by the end of summer, and the leaves will be the size of small platters.  The canopy, too, will be full and bushy, and it will look like a big green tunnel without much visibility beyond it’s leafy border.  It’s one of my favorite spots on this trail because it evolves in such a beautiful way between spring and autumn.

Not far down the trail I came upon the remains of a feast.  I’m guessing that the lynx whose been hanging around made quick work of a rabbit, leaving nothing but some tufts of white hair on the side of the trail to mark its picnic spot.

My destination was the top of the ridge of mountains bordering Chugach State Park.  It’s always fun to hike up at higher elevations early in the season and see all the alpine flowers in bloom.  They grow in the most unlikely inhospitable places you can imagine.  They put down roots in ground that is much closer to a combination of cement and gravel, than it is to soil. 

In the mid-elevations there are occasional stands of quaking aspen which are just gorgeous, and the leaves do seem to quake and tremble at the slightest breeze.

The view from the top is amazing.  One one side is the valley ringed with peaks and the last vestiges of snow, and Cook Inlet and the Anchorage Bowl spread out on the other side.  The last deep patches of snow which remain in avalanche chutes are still obviously covered in volcanic ash from Mt. Redoubt’s eruption last month.

There are lots of flowers blooming up in that hard, gravelly substrate that they love so well.  The one that seems most prolific here is the white mountain aven.  I love taking pictures of them, and they seem unlike most of the other alpine blooms in size.  Most alpine flowers are small and tentative…like they know it’s a risk to be a blooming thing up here where the wind gusts can top 120 mph, and snow stays late and comes early.  You get the impression that being tiny and compact is a distinct advantage in these parts, and most flowers require close and careful inspection to reveal their beauty.  But not the mountain aven.  They’re big by comparison (almost 2 inches across) with large but dainty petals, sticking up as happy as can be, defying the elements.  If a flower can have a devil-may-care attitude, this one does.

~~White mountain aven clinging to the gravelly hillside~~

There were zillions of little insects crawling around.  There were teeny interesting spiders, big creepy rectangular spiders, strange bi-colored ants, and all sorts of things.  I thought it would be fun to take a picture of what the mountain aven looked like from their point of view.

While I was on the ground with all my scuttling little friends, I noticed lots of flowers which were very inconspicuous, but beautiful nonetheless.  I don’t even know what this one is, and I don’t remember seeing it before, but it was about the size of a pencil eraser.

And I’m pretty sure these little pink bells of the same size will become cranberries at some point.

And these yellow ones are so burn-your-eyeballs yellow that it’s hard to get a decent picture of them, especially in the sun.  But it must do something for that little guy in the lower left flower.

One more look at the view, and it was time to head back down.

Now that June is upon us, the real show will begin.  Soon there will be roses, and geraniums and fireweed and iris and all sorts of colorful additions to the scenery.

Well, it’s been a busy couple of days for Hope, Mr. Hope and Caravan Guy.  The truckload of supplies to help those rebuilding after the flood left the Lowe’s parking lot in South Anchorage, stopped off in Wasilla, and made it all the way to Eagle.  Mudflatter Yukonbushgrma met up with the crew, and said they had a great time visiting.  The details of the journey, and pictures are forthcoming once Hope makes it home and has the chance to send me her account of the trip.

While we wait, enjoy the open thread.

“The feds.”  It’s a slang term that most of us are used to seeing after the words “seized by” or before the words “raided the house.”   It’s never said with respect or fondness.   Rarely do you hear someone say “the feds are trying to give me money,”  or “the feds want to weatherize my house.” 

And never have I heard a governor of one of the 50 states, that is actually part of the country, call the federal government “the feds.”  I would no more expect that than I would expect to hear them talk about “the fuzz” or “the coppers.”

But Sarah Palin never disappoints.  I’ve heard her say “the feds” before, but now here it is in black and white, in a compass piece in the Anchorage Daily News, talking about why she continues to stand by her rejection of almost $30 million in federal money for weatherization and energy projects in the very cold and very deserving state of Alaska. 

Here are the things in her opinion piece that I would have put my red pen through if I had been asked to edit it. 

The feds required me to certify these codes

“big brother” government involvement

opposition to Washington, D.C., meddling in local issues.

The last thing we needed was a bureaucrat from Washington, D.C

I asked the feds to clarify their position.

Beware of Washington, D.C

My administration will remain vigilant for Alaskans and oppose mandates or pressure to conform from Washington, D.C., bureaucrats.

Isn’t this the woman who hopes in 2012 to be running the federal government?  It’s like one of those old 1940s movies where you see Greta Garbo or someone gazing into the smoldering eyes of the male lead protesting, “I hate you!  I hate you!” and then comes violin music, the grabbing of the waist, and a big fat lip lock.  The governor hates the feds so much, she wants to merge with them in some sort of strange bodice-ripping political affair.

I read the governor’s whole opinion piece without stopping, and hardly knew where to start.  Each paragraph could have been its own essay.  The fact that she is playing dress-up as a fiscal conservative is as transparent as Saran Wrap.  The name dropping of rural communities is patronizing.  “These new codes are so detailed they would dictate the kinds of lights that can be installed in a home in Akutan, and how thick window panes must be in Chignik.”  If she were only as concerned about the heat required for a home in Emmonak, or the fish required to feed communities on the Kuskokwim.

After I finished reading, I needed to let my brain breathe, and decided to clear off some papers from my desk.  That’s when a funny moment of serendipity happened.  I found my unopened District 32 Legislative Update from Rep. Mike Hawker.  Hawker is not only my representative, he’s also the co-chair of the House Finance Committee.  I decided to read it, and something grabbed my attention under the heading “Federal Economic Stimulus.”

“…the money allocated for Alaska would have largely been redirected to other states if we chose not to accept those funds.  The belief that Alaskan tax money would be better spent in Alaska than elsewhere aided our decision.

After weeks of intensive public hearings, committee meetings, staff work and discussions with the administration, legislators determined there were no critical “strings” attached to the money.  The benefits of putting nearly $1 billion of new federal money into Alaska’s economy transcended our original concerns.  The legislature voted overwhelmingly to authorize receipt of all the available money.  Actual acceptance and spending of the funds is subject to the governor’s decision to sign the authorization into law.

Specific intent language was included in our stimulus authorization bill ensuring that cities, school districts and other recipients understand the federal funding is only a one-time boost and should be used to supplement or improve existing programs rather than create new services or programs.”

Now, before you go assuming that I live in a liberal district with a Sarah-hatin’ ankle-bitin’ socialist for a legislator, let me assure you that Mike Hawker is quite the conservative Republican.  He’s just not running for president, and is actually thinking about what might be best for the state of Alaska, not what looks good to the national base.

So, let’s recap. 

Any money turned away goes to other states, ergo Sarah Palin is ostensibly handing almost $30 million, slated to boost our economy to Arnold Schwarzenneger.

The Finance Committee and an overwhelming number in the legislature say there are no strings.  Palin says,  “strings were definitely attached to federal energy dollars.”  

So, who’s telling us the truth here… the vast majority of elected representatives from both sides of the aisle, or the governor who needs to look like a fiscal conservative in her presumed bid for the presidency in 2012?

(Jeopardy music begins, as you scribble your answer)

Me:  Times up!

You:  What is…..the overwhelming majority of the bipartisan Legislature?

Me:  You are correct!

Crowd cheers.