Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Bud, the Brave


Like many a father, Bud Welch was embarrassingly proud of his 23-year-old daughter, Julie. Bright, multilingual, ambitious, generous, dedicated, giving, quick-witted, and beautiful, Julie Welch had a plan. She wanted to use her degree in Spanish from Marquette University in Milwaukee to become an interpreter at the Social Security Administration back in her hometown of Oklahoma City. She wanted to make it easier for the Spanish-speaking to navigate the red-tape of governmental agencies that make it difficult, even for those of us who speak English. She was preparing to become engaged to her long-time love, a young lieutenant at Tinker Air Force Base.

Julie Welch knew how things should be. Working within the labyrinthine Social Security Administration proved challenging for her, and when confronted with a stifling bit of bureaucracy that seemed momentarily insurmountable, she would whisper to her co-workers, "That's just not the way it should be." But Julie never wavered from her belief that, to change the system, you had to do it from the inside out. To help the people who needed help the most, you had to put your head down, and soldier onward, knowing that if you could change one mind at a time, things would eventually get better.

On a Wednesday morning in the Spring of 1995, Julie Welch awoke with her entire life ahead of her. A job she loved, a man she adored who adored her in return, a loving relationship with her divorced parents, Julie Welch seemed untouchable. On April 19th, Julie, a devout Catholic, left her apartment and attended early mass at the Little Flowers Church, something she did frequently before work. She arrived at her first-floor office at the Social Security Administration office in downtown Oklahoma City, ready to take on the day with her usual tenacity and unbridled passion for what she knew was her calling.

Julie Welch's day came to an abrupt end at approximately 9:02 am on Wednesday, April 19, 1995, when a rented truck packed with 5,000 pounds of home-made explosive devices detonated in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, just outside the windows of the federally-run preschool. Seven miles away, Bud Welch was just in the process of getting out of bed. Every Wednesday, he and Julie met at a Greek restaurant for lunch across the street from the Murrah Building, and he was looking forward to seeing her, when the entire house suddenly shook with the sound of an enormous explosion. When he turned on his television, and realized exactly where the bomb had gone off, his entire life as he knew it became inexorably altered.

They would not find Julie Welch's body until Saturday, the 22nd, after four days of sifting through the rubble of the entire front face of the cracked-wide-open Murrah Building.

For the first couple of years after his daughter's murder, Bud Welch was a man filled with hatred -- hatred for Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices, hatred for the conspiracy theorists who persisted in implying that this was a black-ops CIA plot to try to gain permission to spy on US soil, to the government for the events that occurred at Waco, TX, resulting in the deaths of the Branch Davidians, which federal prosecutors insisted was the reason behind the attack in Oklahoma City. As Bud Welch tells it, he had enough anger to go around for everybody. Every day for a year after the bombing, he fed that hatred by returning to the site where she died. He drank to excess, smoked four packs a day, and dreamed of dark, terrible things he'd like to see happen to the bombers.

And then one day, the realization hit him like 10,000 volts. As a lifelong detractor of capital punishment (as was his daughter, Julie), if he stood by and watched as McVeigh and accomplice Terry Nichols were put to death, it would be propagating the same kind of revenge mentality that got Julie Welch killed in the first place. In that moment, it came to Bud Welch that he had a means for going forward without his daughter -- by picking up the banner of her loving heart and her social conscience, and moving on with it.

Bud Welch stopped drinking. He stopped smoking four packs a day. He stopped traveling to the place his daughter died and began to live in the memory of where -- and how -- she had lived. He began to speak out in favor of sparing the lives of McVeigh and Nichols. This made him anything but popular with other survivors who'd lost loved ones at the Murrah Building. He got death threats, hate mail, and was openly confronted with shouting and screaming when he attended the trials. Tempted to strike back, Bud kept the memory of his daughter close at hand, and made efforts to talk, gently and calmly about why he felt that his position deserved to be heard amongst the calls for vengeance.

Almost everyone who confronted Bud Welch was forced, through his straightforward, non-confrontational approach, to at least hear him out. Most never changed their minds. Some stopped openly calling for the death penalty. One, a woman who lost two grandchildren in the bombing, not only stopped screaming obscenities at Welch when she saw him, but actually began greeting him with a hug, and eventually -- even to Welch's astonishment -- began to correspond with Nichols in prison.

Welch's philosophy is a simple one. Execution not only does not bring closure, it actively prevents it. Welch believes that the ability to confront the monster who killed one you love is critical to the healing process. He tried to meet with McVeigh, but was rebuffed by the convicted bomber, who was eventually executed at his own request by lethal injection on June 11, 2001. He also testified in the penalty phase against executing McVeigh accomplice Nichols. It helped him go on, he says.

"God didn't make us so that we somehow get a feel-good out of taking someone else's life," he said. "It isn't part of the healing process."

And healing is what Bud Welch has done. With a vengeance, you might say. His new focus in life is to end the death penalty by changing one mind at a time, if needs be. Polling company Zogby International says that that might be a daunting task, but not as impossible as it appears on its face. Already, Zogby polls are showing that fewer and fewer Americans support the death penalty. Particularly among Welch's own demographic -- middle-class Catholics -- support for the death penalty has fallen in the last ten years from nearly 70% to a mere 48%.

Welch makes public appearances all over the country, speaking about his journey to healing. This Saturday, March 4th, he flies to Seattle, Washington, where the organization Abolish the Death Penalty will welcome him as the keynote speaker at their 2006 Annual Abolish Dinner & Auction.

There, Bud Welch will no doubt take the podium, and, like many a proud father, will tell the story of his daughter, Julie -- of her life, her death, of the agony of losing one's only child, and of his struggle to find a reason and a means to go on without her. This brave act, among so many brave acts, makes Bud Welch one of the best, most righteous people I have ever heard about. I hope that someday, I can be fortunate enough to hear him speak in person. But if I never do, I feel today that I know him, knew his daughter, and can find the place in myself that can forgive without vengeance.

~C~


CREDITS: Photo of Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial by Dustin M. Ramsey. Thanks to CNN archives, Zogby and Wikipedia for the research resources used in the writing of this post.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Ow.

I have a toothache.

It's bad.

I just wanted to share that, so you would all feel very sorry for me.


Commence to feeling sorry now.

Thank you.

~C~

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

A Few Brief Points

1. When the President is the recipient of oral sex in the West Wing of the White House, particularly if the perpitrator is someone other than said President's wife, this is, I'm afraid to say, newsworthy. When the Vice President of the United States shoots a 78-year-old Austin lawyer in the face, even accidentally, this is also newsworthy. It has come to my attention that there seems to be some confusion on this point on the part of Scott McClellan, Richard Cheney and the President of the United States.

2. If Katrina had come ashore and caused flooding in West Palm Beach, instead of the poorest neighborhoods in New Orleans, there wouldn't still be between 500 and 1,000 dead bodies rotting underneath the ruins of acres and acres of uncleaned, e-coli contaminated refuse. If we can afford to build a bridge in Alaska that has no purpose other than to create an Alaskan payday for out-of-work ironworkers, we can afford to begin rebuilding New Orleans.

3. I think that a U.S. Administration that's stupid and crazy enough to outsource the security of its seaports to a Dubai-based company has automatically forfeited the right to x-ray my shoes while I stand barefoot, waiting to fly from Los Angeles to Dayton, Ohio.

~C~

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

God Hates Fred Phelps

No, really. We had coffee last weekend, and He said I should blog about this. The subject came up about Phelps and his legions of idiots who travel to funerals of soldiers killed in action and basically thank God that the soldiers are dead, seeing as how they defend a country that harbors homosexuals. I mentioned to God that I've blogged about Phelps before. But God (being that He's God and knows everything, which is why I refuse to watch Jeopardy with Him anymore) said there was a new twist to the whole story. There's a group of bikers who travel around to the same funerals, waving flags, shielding the mourning families from the sight of Phelps and his flock of the Chronically Stupid.

God shook his head, and mentioned that even in the current Bible -- a book that's been perverted and maimed by thousands of years of passing through human hands -- no where does it say he "hates fags." God didn't use the word "fag," of course, for God finds such epithets demeaning, not only to the intended targets, but to the speaker as well.

He did say the words, "Fred Phelps," though I could tell they left a bad taste in His mouth. I could be imagining it, but I could of sworn He stumbled over the "F" in Fred's name. "F -- Fred Phelps." Then He wrinkled the bridge of His nose (God has the cutest little nose!) and quickly changed the subject to Avril Lavigne, presumably so as not so spoil His appetite for His mocha breve and banana nut bread.

Whatever God's history with Fred Phelps, He was pretty definitive about not hating fa... uhhh... homosexuals (not even the queenie ones), and that He completely disavows anything that Phelps has to say on the subject. God did mention that He thinks that Fred Phelps spends way too much time thinking, talking and dreaming about all things homosexual, and He speculated aloud between sips of His breve as to why exactly that might be. Hmmmm....

God does like bikers though. As He finished up the last of his breve and blotted the banana nut crumbs up from the napkin with a moistened finger, I could have sworn I saw a flash of a Harley tattoo from under His sleeve.

~C~

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

This is Why I Love Anne Lamott

This will be the second time I am rendered silent by the brilliance of words so thoughtfully, powerfully strung together that my commentary could only diminish them. The first was Sharon Olds' letter refusing First Lady Laura Bush's invitation to participate in the National Book Festival luncheon at the White House.

This time, it's Anne Lamott's piece in the L.A. Times from February 10, 2006, recounting her recent appearance in a Washington, D.C. panel discussion about liberal Christian political strategy, and how the conversation suddenly degenerated (as all too many do these days) into the topic of abortion.

It is a powerful, no-holds-barred piece that says everything I ever wanted to say, but couldn't think fast enough on my feet to get out.

We love you, Annie.

~C~

Thursday, February 09, 2006

A Couple of New Blogs

Well, they're not really new, but they're new to me. I only recently found them, and I find their content to range from interesting to ironic to odd and creative to riproaringly funny.

The first is Outrage.com. Ellen reads. A lot. All over. And because I don't really have the time to do that, between work and school and kid, I have been relying on her to point me in the direction of newsworthy stories and things I should be paying attention to. Furthermore, she reads all across the board -- not only liberal sites, but moderate and a little of the conservative stuff, too. Ellen does the reading so I don't have to. I'd hire her as my assistant, but I work and am in grad school, so consequently I have no money. Let's just say I owe Ellen a debt of gratitude, and leave it at that.

The second site, the possiblity of fire, is political and poetic and topical all at the same time. I've exchanged a couple of e-mails with the Notorious WCH (his new hip-hop name, henceforth), and he is very engaged and intelligent. He also has a way with creative nonfiction that is wildly entertaining.

The third site I need to you know about it is called I Blame the Patriarchy, and it is the brainchild of one Twisty Faster. Twisty is my new blog heroine. I worship Twisty. Look. See in the corner? The little stone altar, covered in burnt offerings? That's for Twisty. Her site is too eclectic to explain, but suffice it to say, it involves news, feminism, food critique, vermin identification and Baby Dogfight Day. She's crazy. And yet... not....

Go, read, learn, laugh.

I'll be here when you get back.

~C~

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Choice Feminism?

Here we are.... back where we belong.... ~C~

In her Salon.com piece, Feminism After Friedan, writer Joan Walsh looks at Friedan's life's work to determine how it fits into what modern feminist, Linda Hirschman calls "choice feminism" -- the current phenomenon of women who work hard to educate themselves, build careers, then completely walk away from their careers in order to raise children.

Hirschman, in her piece Homeward Bound (on American Prospect), says that feminists -- all feminists -- need to reject this trend wholesale, and she uses Friedan's work as her underpinning for the argument. She rebukes the position that anything a woman does is feminist if it's her "choice." Hirschman uses Mark Twain's quote, "A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read." Walsh isn't so sure that Friedan's writings really support that position.

I've always been a "choice" kind of girl. But as I've stated before, that was before I knew what losing four years being unemployed and underemployed was going to do to my Social Security contributions. There is an idea that, once you leave the workforce to raise your children, the workforce will welcome you back when you're ready. I can tell you from personal experience that this simply is not the case. Say what you like about the skills required to be a stay-at-home mom and homemaker (which are more extensive and more varied than any workplace position will ever require of one person). Those skills are not recognized outside of a right and proper curriculum vitae that a job recruiter can hold in her hands and look at. Therefore, though character-building, they don't mean diddly. When you've been unemployed on paper for three or four years, and then you return, you will take several major grandaddy steps backwards in your salary and position. That lowers a woman's contribution to her retirement accounts, such as Social Security, IRA accounts and 401Ks. Raising one child cost me what will probably amount to $1,000 per month in terms of retirement benefits. Had I been home long enough to raise two or more, I'd have lost considerably more.

Does this mean that I shouldn't have stayed home with my daughter in those crucial first three years? In truth, knowing what I know now, I think I would not have quit work altogether. I would have attempted to arrange to work part-time, or work at home somehow, so that some money was being contributed to my retirement income, and some kind of work registered on my resume. I didn't do these things because I was ignorant of the consequences. 54% of all marriage (including mine) ends in divorce, leaving a woman without access to her husband's retirement income.

I'd like to know what you think. Those of you who work, those of you who don't. If you are currently a mom, why have you made the "choice" (and I am aware that there may have been no choice at all, but sheer necessity) to work or not work? If you aren't a mom yet, or have finished raising your kids, what was your decision, why, and would you do it differently in retrospect? If you are a man, what do you (or would you, or will you) want your wife to do regarding the raising of your children?

Since I've asked for your opinion, I suppose it's only fair that I fork over mine. In most cases, in our society today, when a couple has a child, a man is expected to keep working. Now, he not only must be a worker, a lover, a partner or husband, but now a father as well. Most times, the option of staying at home with his child for several years is not an option. A woman, in society, is given a "choice." Stay at home or keep working. I "chose" to stay at home. I do not regret it. But I do regret not making sure I understood what I was sacrificing in the long run. And I could kick myself for being so naive as to believe that someone else would take care of any loss I sustained while doing so. That, I believe, is at the heart of Hirschman's point that "choice" feminism isn't really choice at all, but an emotional decision based on a set of archaic ideas that have been spoonfed into women from early childhood -- even today.

To quote one of my favorite movies Death Becomes Her... "Now... a warning... " ("Now, a warning?"). I'm not one of those women who tolerates sisters bashing sisters. I realize that this topic is a heated one, and that both sides (the working moms and stay-at-homes) have been pretty awful to each other in the past. Let me be really clear here. Bashing of the sisters is strictly prohibited! I'd like your opinions, but only if we can keep the rhetoric and histrionics to a minimum. I don't want to hear that stay-at-home moms are too involved in the children's lives, and I don't want to hear how working moms are unloving and unnurturing. And I definitely don't want to hear from men that life is unfair because they don't usually get to be Mr. Mom. We get all that. If you want that kind of idiotic rhetoric, go see a taping of Dr. Phil. I will dump any post that even hints at a tone of judgementalism or vitriol for the other side. I am only interested in your choices and your opinions of that choice, not your opinion about the lady next door who made a different choice.

So, we have the question, we have the ground rules. Let me know what you think.

~C~

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Problems in FTPLand

All the little shoemaker's elves are working on it, but for the moment.... The Chron is on a little holiday, sunning itself on a beach in Bermuda.

~C~