So I’m heading to Denver for a big old meeting of Buddhists. Soka Gakkai is having a group meeting of folks from several states, to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the last trip that international SGI President Daisaku Ikeda made to the United States.

Basically, it’s several hundred of us getting together for some meetings, socializing, and a little revitalization of our practices. There’s something very powerful about several hundred people chanting at the same time- even if you’re not Buddhist, I strongly suggest you go to a big meeting like that where they recite gongyo, it’s really interesting to see and experience. (Likewise, I have enjoyed large groups worshipping together for big services, like in a big Catholic church in Yakima for Easter with the archbishop several years ago.)

I’ll be taking a few days off from the blog, I think. I might blog if I have time- I’ll have my laptop- but am leaning towards taking the break.

You know, I like Seattle. A lot. In fact, I love it here.

But there are sometimes things about my newly adopted city that really bug me.

This city is all too frequently run by and for people who live north of I-90, but there’s a pretty significant portion of the population that lives in the southern half of the city. And here’s an example, from a subject that’s near and dear to my heart…

(graphic ruthlessly stolen from The Seattle Times but hey, at least I didn’t hotlink it)

There’s a news story in today’s paper about how the city’s parks department is considering creating a couple more off-leash areas… and guess where they both are?

Up in those red circles.

Where’s the off-leash areas in the southern half of the city? What the heck is the deal with that?

Now, personally, I live smack in the middle of downtown. If you see the parks # 6 and 8, and drew a line between them, that’s where I’m at. I can handle that there aren’t any dog parks down here; the one at the Denny Regrade park (#6) is awfully small, and the one at Jose Rizal park (#8) is kind of weird, perched on the side of a steep hill and frequently quite muddy.

The thing is that downtown real estate costs so much that the city can’t afford to be plopping a couple of acres aside for dogs to run around off-leash. No problem, I get it, I agree.

But in the southern half of the city? The land there is even cheaper than it is on Queen Anne or Magnolia! And it’s not like there aren’t people living down there; West Seattle, Beacon Hill, Columbia City, the Rainier valley… there’s lots of people living in the southern half of the city.

It’s something that needs to change in Seattle. The southern half of the city doesn’t get nearly as much positive stuff. It is, of course, a money issue; the rich folks tend to live up north.

This is just an example, a small one, of how things need to change. The first thing I’d do is switch Seattle to having districts for city council members instead of each position being elected city-wide. The problem with city-wide elections is you wind up with horrible GroupThink on the council; nobody has to stand up for any particular neighborhood and each member only has to keep most of the city happy at any given time.

If there were a couple of council members that had the majority of their district in the southern parts of the city, they’d have to answer to angry constituents about how the city is treating them, and things would change.

Second, I think people need to get more involved. Personally, I’m going to start writing more letters and emails, and maybe start going to more meetings- the one tonight the article mentions might be a good place to start.

Hopefully we can get some things changed… the first thing, getting the council reorganized, is something that takes the entire city’s approval- and the last time it came up, it was shot down. But the second thing- getting individual citizens involved- can happen without a buy-in from everyone.

If you live in the south half of Seattle and want to change things, give me a shout!

There is a reason that statues and paintings representing “Lady Justice” frequently portray her holding a set of scales.

It’s because justice is frequently a balancing act between varying sets of rights and responsibilities.

This comes to my mind because of a recent news item here in the Seattle area. A little boy, just 9 months old, was in Children’s Hospital for a potentially life-saving procedure… and then he was kidnapped by his mother. An Amber Alert was issued and after a statewide hunt, the mother and child were found.

The mother has now been charged with kidnapping.

How can a mother kidnap her own child, you might ask?

Well, because at times the medical system will have the court system intervene and take custody of the child away from the parent. This is usually because the parent is refusing some kind of medical treatment which will most likely save the child from serious harm.

There’s a good article in today’s Seattle Times that runs this down. They’re a bit limited in what they can say because of medical privacy laws, but in effect it seems that this child was in the hospital, scheduled for a surgery, and the parent didn’t want the child to have the surgery- so the hospital got a court order and got custody of the child.

The whole situation frequently comes into play when religious faiths are entwined, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses. They tend to reject blood transfusions. I’m not educated on it enough to say why, but that’s not important; what’s important is that we have to wind up turning to the justice system to make a decision that balances the rights of the parents to raise their child how they see fit versus the right of the child to healthcare, and the responsibility of the State to see to the welfare of the child.

From a Nichiren Buddhist point of view, this is an easy call- you administer the care to the child. Compassion for others is hugely important. Some might say that if we force it, we’re not having compassion for the parents, but the problem is that ultimately we’re in control of our own karma and fate. If the medical procedure gives the child the chance to grow older and develop their own karma better, then that’s what we would support.

The most vulnerable among us are the ones who need a fair justice system the most, and children are certainly vulnerable. Ultimately, I think we’ve got to err on the side of giving the child a chance to grow up to the age where they can make that decision for themselves, rather than letting the parent make the decision for the child- and possibly ending the child’s life before kid can make the call on their own.

…Okay. The Bush Administration has basically been trying to greatly increase the power of the executive branch. I find this fairly ironic, because back when Clinton was in charge and Janet Reno was running the Department of Justice, there were lots of complaints about “Big Brother” from plenty of right-wingers that I know.

So, righties (if there’s any reading this blog), I gotta ask you… how’s that whole Bush thing working for you now?

• He’s spying on your phone calls.
• He’s monitoring your financial transactions.
• He’s giving himself a free pass on torture.
• He’s spying on what you are looking at on the Internet.
• He’s setting records for ignoring the laws that Congress passes. (This last one was interesting to me- did you know that Bush has issued over 750 “signing statements” when he’s signed laws from Congress? These signing statements purport to give him the right to interpret the law as he or the executive branch sees fit.)

So I have to wonder… to the folks who lean more libertarian, or conservatives who are (or used to be) reluctant to allow the federal government more power to intrude upon our lives… how is Bush working out for you now?

How’s the Republican party working for you now?

Bush has increased the size of the federal government. Every couple of weeks, it seems like we find out about another government program to spy on people without a court order or warrant. Once the intial story is broken, the Administration downplays it, and then more details emerge that make it obvious that their downplaying statements were also lies.

Then, rather than debate the merits or validity of the program, they suggest that it’s treasonous to have come out with the story in the first place.

As if… as if the terrorists didn’t know that the government was probably trying to tap their phones? Monitor their money transactions? Come on. This is 2006, and despite what these people seem to think, the terrorists aren’t THAT stupid.

No, folks- the fact is that the Bush Administration has been utterly horrible when it comes to intruding upon private citizens’ lives, and the evidence is right there for anyone to look at.

Yes, I know- we’re at war. Well, I think that to trade liberty for security is to gain neither. I think that if we have to resort to scummy tactics that the bad guys have won. I think that for the President to declare himself above international treaties (like the Geneva Convention) and to say they don’t have to follow the laws on torture is just flat-out wrong.

And what’s more, I believe that more and more of you people who’re normally Republicans think so too.

It’s okay to say it. You’re not disloyal. You’re not a traitor. And if you can’t bring yourself to say it, then go ahead and think it, and then don’t give any money to the Republicans. Send some to a reasonable Democrat instead, and then go vote for the Dems.

You might not like gays getting married, or abortion, but at least you’ll be free in your homes, free to make phone calls without the NSA listening in, free to send money to your cousin in a foreign land, be able to live knowing that the United States isn’t torturing people in your name.

It’s okay. Review what’s going on, think about it, and then do the right thing.