Author: Danielle Levy

In South Florida you can ostensibly get fired for marrying someone in the porn industry. Scott Janke was fired “without cause” for just that. In the same way he’s been for years in both Florida and Alaska, he was the town manager of Fort Myers Beach, a town of about 6500. Last October he married Anabela Mota, a porn star. But the city’s mayor, Larry Kiker, only now realized what Mrs. Janke does. Kiker said that Janke had done a good job, but was concerned that the situation would be a distraction for the town and keep him from being effective in the future.
It’s possible that Kiker’s argument may have come to pass. More than likely, other scenarios may have developed. Perhaps an initial hubbub would have eventually petered out. Regardless, it does raise the issue of a double standard. Given how many people are consumers of the porn industry, was the problem that all 6500 resident object to porn and abstain from being consumers? Was the problem that some of the residents had seen Mrs. Janke in one of her movies and could not separate the sex-actress from the person? Were they concerned that their children would be led astray in some way they wouldn’t know how to explain? Would they have made the same decision if she had worked in a nuclear power plant where the risk of an accident is always a possibility? Whatever the mayor’s or the town’s reasons, it does make one wonder about people who have a double standard.

California’s $26 billion budget deficit has been well publicized. It’s being resolved by cutting many programs. Most of the cuts affect education, the elderly and the disabled, low income people like home health aides and people on MediCal. $1.2 billion is also to be cut from prisons. Some of this includes releasing low priority offenders or people who violated parole. Of all the groups most vocal and best organized to fight these cuts, are those who don’t want prisoners release, so much so they succeeded in having the vote tabled. One might think that a more compassionate set of values would strengthen protests towards the needy, or that some with a practical eye toward the future would suggest education ought to be priority one. Instead, it’s prisoner release. For some the objection is cloaked as a concern for safety. Regardless it tells us that our need for punishment, our lack of regard for those we put in prisons is greater than our need to be educated, or live in a society where being old and disabled has a safety net.
I, for one, find our priorities need adjusting.

Sir Edward Downes, the well-known British conductor, and his wife Joan flew to Switzerland recently, registered at an assisted suicide clinic, paid the $6,000 and some fee, drank a white liquid and died. Joan was 74 and had terminal cancer. He was 85 with failing eye sight and hearing and though he had no terminal illness was soon to be a widower after over 50 happy married years. His children approved and are willing to serve prison time if necessary, his friends and colleagues call the act brave. Some, however, are troubled that it should be so easy for a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide and are asking for some kind of restraint.
In Spain meanwhile the oldest woman known to have given birth through in vitro fertilization died at age 69 leaving two toddlers behind. She had flown to a Southern California clinic, lied about her age in order to fit within the cut-off date of 55, even though at the time she was 66 and believed that like her mother who died at 101, so would she. Her case, so far at least, has minimally renewed calls for further restraining the age limit of the procedure.
Sir Edward knew what he was doing. He had done what he was to do with his life, he was increasingly no longer able to function as before, faced a lonely old age fraught with disabilities. Was the Spanish woman as clear headed? She doesn’t appear to have made provisions for her children should something happen to her—her brother reportedly sold her story to an entertainment company in order to raise money to care for them.
There’s something to be said for someone like Sir Edward, who isn’t afraid to die, chooses to do it on his own terms, and ostensibly knew the difference between himself and a depressed 30 year-old committing suicide. What is there to say for someone like the Spanish woman who wanted children no matter what and was proud of herself for having succeeded regardless of the consequences to other human beings?
We live in a culture where death is so little understood, our ignorance faults our understanding of life and as these cases show, we get easily confused about when to value them.

Now that the hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor is over, what do we know about the kind of justice she would be? Not more than we knew before it. We know she’s an articulate, bright lawyer who knows the law as much as you’d expect someone who’s been an Appellate Court judge for the last decade. When Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed, his hearing was only notable for the frequency of his use of the words stare decisis, citing the need for the court to rely on precedent. And Justice Samuel Alito’s rather fades from memory. After the contentious theatrics of several prior nominations, nominees are prepped to answer without giving away any information. For as long as the Congress is polarized along party lines the system may not be able to change. So why hold a hearing? Have we reached the point where they become a game? If so, why not devise some other system, one that avoids the waste of the Congress’ time, ours, and too the vapid comments from media commentators.