Saturday, January 16, 2010

Apparently I have chosen the wrong career.

I am fond of the city of Boston.  There is a unique mix of history and youth.  Streets lined with edifices built by the very founders of our nation are traversed by young men and women studying in the many colleges and universities that dot the city, giving it energy and vitality. 

That being said, there are a few things about Boston I am definitely NOT a fan of.  First, the New England Patriots.  Go Ravens.  Second, Faneuil Hall does not impress me.  It's overcrowded, overly-commercial, and vaguely reminiscent of a colonial-era shopping mall, complete with a Ye Olde Cinnabon.  (I know that I've just uttered words that the Boston Chamber of Commerce would consider sacrilege; so be it.)  Finally, the bus ride from the airport is nothing short of hell on wheels.  The drivers are lunatics, the traffic is horrendous, and the passengers laugh as your knuckles turn pale gripping the seat in front of you in sheer terror. 

Still, it's an awesome town.  There are few sights as amazing as Fenway, the harbor, and those amazing penguins in the New England Aquarium; they are AWESOME! 

Much like the college students who fill the city and surrounding areas each fall semester spending mommy and daddy's hard-earned retirement accounts at institutions of higher learning, I come to Boston intrigued...but while they are intrigued by how many beers a person can drink until he is face-first on a historic sidewalk, I am more interested in the juxtaposition of a storied Irish Catholic tradition and the perrenial election of politicians who directly oppose the teachings Catholics hold dear.  What's up, Bean Town?  Of course, this seems to be a state-wide problem in Massachusetts, so let's not put all the blame on Boston.  Liberal New England politicos are born and raised in this state.

I am most especially excited today because Martha Coakley, Democratic candidate to fill the recently expired Ted Kennedy's senate seat, has cleared up an obvious error I have made.  In an interview on WBSM with host Ken Pittman, Martha brought to light an issue I had previously not considered.  Here is the text:
PITTMAN: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin, uh, you don’t want to do that (work in an emergency room).
COAKLEY: No, but we have a seperation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.
PITTMAN: Yeah, in the emergency room, you still have your religious freedom.
COAKLEY: [stuttering] The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then, you can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
PITTMAN: Wow. Okay.
Wow. Okay. So here is the problem: I am a devout Catholic; worse still, I not only WORK in an Emergency room, I pretty much run the whole dang thing. I guess I should have thought the whole thing through a little better. Thank you Martha, thank you Massachusetts, and thank you Democratic party for setting me straight. I will be filling out the matchbook cover Sally Struthers sent me to become a dental assistant. Hopefully Catholics are allowed to clean teeth.

What lunacy.  Maybe we should hang signs on the front of our Emergency Departments that read, "Catholics need not apply".  Does that ring a bell?  Would the Irish Catholics of Massachusetts please wake up?


  1. Well said David!

    Well said..
    I find we are continually going from the frying pan into the fire,

    and we are surrouded by idiots!

    Our help is in the Name of the Lord!
    who made heaven and Earth!
    Blessed be the Lord!
    both Now and forever!

    God bless us all!
    Ellen the Maronite

  2. Lord, have mercy. "And Jesus wept."

  3. What was the context? I'm confused as to why it came up at all. Is birth control something that is routinely given in an ER? That hardly seems like emergency care to me. Unless they're referring to "emergency contraception" following a rape or something. I'm really confused.

  4. Coakley's comments are confusing, but according to the Washington Post's article re: her exchange with Pittman this mainly refers to her belief that the conscience clause that protects practitioners and medical professionals from being required to morally objectionable procedures and services has no place in an ED.

    Realit is, most care delivered in an ED is not emergency care. A much larger portion of those who access services do so out of convenience, a lack of insurance, or laziness. I would estimate at least sixty percent or more of those who visit inner-city ER's could have accessed their services in an immediate care, clinic or primary care office. So, contraception is certainly given out in ED's (scripts and samples) all over the country. Unless, of course, you work in a Catholic hospital, as I do.

  5. When those with morals are excluded from an area, it become run by the immoral.

  6. Which is precisely what the immoral are trying to do.

  7. +JMJ+

    If anyone I love ever ends up in an emergency room, I hope it's run by people like you, David. The alternative is too frightening.

  8. Well, I guess now we know which of the two (you or Coakley) was right. Glad you're in and she's out, David.


I am always interested and appreciative of your comments and thank you for taking the time. God bless you.