Presidential Endorsement: A Wasted Vote?

The Gridbook Blog proudly endorses Joe Schriner for President of the United States. Most of you are probably asking "Who?"

Out of all the people running for president this election (there are options other than the two you always hear about) Mr. Schriner is the only candidate who espouses Consistent Life positions. His political stances are consistently compassionate. His unyielding focus on human dignity and social justice is to be applauded. Although both major party candidates are honest and likable people, they both have serious defects in their positions on basic human rights. Schriner is usually right where the Obama and McCain are wrong.

The next question everyone asks is, "Why waste your vote writing in a candidate no one has even heard of?" I admit that Schriner will not win the election this year. I suppose if I choose the lesser of two evils and pick the Democrat or Republican ticket I would perhaps get to vote for the one who will become president. I would also ensure that every 4 years we would continue to get nothing but liberals and conservatives from which to select our leaders.

When I was 2 years old my parents got to vote for either Carter or Regan. Every election since with all the different names on the ballot the basic stances haven't changed. Americans are weary of both parties and their morally bankrupt conservative and liberal ideologies, but if we keep voting for Democrats and Republicans that have a chance to win no other party or ideology will ever have gain enough traction to be noticed. I don't want my infant son to grow up and have to pick the lesser of two evils from two candidates with different names but the same ideas as McCain and Obama.

Are you bold enough to waste your vote so our children don't have to waste theirs? Read up on Joe Schriner. You might find yourself excited about writing in a name Republicans and Democrats have never heard of.

(Click here to subscribe to the Gridbook Blog)

Genocide Reflects Poorly On Us

I'm watching the debate:

Barack Obama just said, “When genocide is happening... and we stand idly by, that reflects poorly on us.”

He was talking about genocide in foreign countries, but his words demonstrate how poorly his own indifference toward the systemic killing of unborn children in his own country reflects on him. Obama's commitment to justice is only matched by his callous blindness towards his own hand in horrible injustice.

It really is a shame. He could have been so much better than this.

Human Rights and Gut Reactions

I recently read a fascinating post by Frank Schaeffer on Huffington Post on political compromise in abortion. His approach is interesting and compelling enough that it deserves some response:

First of all I don't want to minimize the significance of the biggest liberal site on the net arguing that late abortions are brutal murders and that Democrats should overturn Roe v. Wade. I hope this this realization will be an important step in the gradual political progress that will hopefully lead us away from the violence of abortion.

The ethics of the post, however, are so problematic that they must be pointed out:

"To most Americans--including me--it is gut-check self-evident that a fertilized egg is not a person, because personhood is a lot more than a collection of chromosomes in a Petri dish or in the womb. To most Americans--including me--it is also gut-check self-evident that an unborn baby is mighty like one of us, and that a lot of fast talking about reproductive rights and choice or a woman's mental well being, doesn't answer the horror of a three-pound child with her head deliberately caved in lying in a medical waste receptacle. Perception is reality in politics, maybe in ethics too."

Human Rights should not be based on emotional gut reactions! Emotional reaction doesn't always lead to right ethics. A European 200 years ago would have said it was gut-check self-evident that people of color couldn't live without white supervision. It sometimes seems obvious that people who cut me off in traffic deserve to die. It seems gut-check obvious that torturing one terrorist would be alright if it might prevent attacks. Gut feelings sometimes lead to good deeds and sometimes lead to enslavement and genocide. We debate human rights because gut reactions aren't enough.

Schaeffer calls “absolutists” who would either permit or ban all abortions “stupid” and claims that they are ruining our hope for political progress in America. I disagree, absolutists are the only ones actually thinking about abortion. Schaffer believes most people could agree on First Trimester as a place to draw the legal line for terminating a pregnancy. But any line in the middle of a pregnancy would be arbitrary. What would make an 11-week 6-day fetus a piece of tissue that can be removed, and a 12-week fetus a person deserving of protection? Almost nothing. The development from one-cell to infant is gradual.

There are only two monumental changes that could be logical candidates for conferring human rights: conception and birth. If you deserve rights from conception then all abortion is murder—and we should not compromise on murder. If before birth no one deserving of rights exists in the uterus then shackling a woman for 9 months to a fetus she doesn't want is unjust imprisonment—and we should not compromise on imprisonment of the innocent. While these are extremes, they strike me as the only thoughtful approaches to abortion. We may compromise on all sorts of politics (economics, healthcare, taxes, immigration) but we shouldn't compromise on human rights.

Schaffer's idea might offer a workable political compromise. Drawing an arbitrary line at the end of the first trimester could let some voters rid themselves of the nagging gut reactions that unsettle them now. Such a compromise would work like the “moderate” policy of whites in America between the Civil War and Civil Rights. Whites wanted to acknowledge the humanity of blacks while denying them legal equality or political power. Human rights compromises may work politically for a time but they are inherent contradictions that struggle under the weight of their own absurdity. Only one side can be right. Only one idea will win in the end. I can only hope that eventually a great human rights movement like the one lead by Martin Luther King will bring our divided culture to agree on the moral bankruptcy of killing unborn humans at any stage.

Schaffer is both insightful and correct on one assertion: If Obama loses this election it will be because of the voters like me who would have happily voted for him except for his unwavering support for abortion.

A Month Without Blogging:

The recent dearth of posts on the Gridbook Blog perhaps requires an explanation: Occasionally life moves so quickly that recording the wave of experiences, realizations, and reflections is simply not possible. My recent life has been such a time.

The complexity and beauty of a growing infant in our home is a source of daily amazement. The adjusting of a marriage to the presence of this new child and strains of outside commitments has been both challenging and wonderful. Also in recent weeks I have finally moved from the Limbo of Emergency Room work and finally become what I always wanted to be. I am now the town doctor of a small rural community. I now have patients who call me their own personal doctor. I have also been writing regularly—just not the sort that would fit into this blog.

The interplay of family and friends, health and illness, responsibility and dreams, politics and absurdity, have provided much to discuss with you in the future. I have only lacked the time to turn these reflections into blog posts.

So the Gridbook Blog is not dead... it is changing. I expect that posts may be less frequent, but hopefully more interesting. There are also several excellent guest posts in the works. Often there will be quiet spaces between postings. You may find that subscribing by email or RSS is easier than checking the site. I look forward to talking to you more about the fascinating times in which we live.

An Open Letter to Senator McCain

While John McCain certainly has a more humane approach to unborn children than Obama, his support for embryonic stem cell research shows a different disturbing flaw: McCain is comfortable doing something he knows is wrong if the benefits appear great enough. This may provide a key to his support for torturing prisoners or killing foreign civilians in times of great need.

Dear Senator McCain,

I have been deeply impressed by your honorable character and consistent opposition to abortion. However, as your fellow pro-lifer and a physician I must respectfully but strongly express concern about your support for embryonic stem cell research. The idea that terminating any other human being for any potential benefit to ourselves is a direct contradiction to the Pro-Life stance you claim to hold. How do you ask a woman not to kill her 7 week-old fetus which may be greatly convenient to her to do, if you are killing 7 day-olds for the potential benefits they could give to her if she develops an illness like Parkinson's or Diabetes?

The argument that age, size, or mental-functioning below a certain level open up humans to destruction if their termination is expedient is the very argument used to support killing babies near birth, the sick, the mentally-challenged, or the elderly. You enter serious moral peril by classifying any human individual as a “thing” rather than a “person.” I am certain you are a very intelligent man, but I don't believe you have the right or ability to draw a line excluding any human (even an embryo) from basic human protection. It is this same logic that allowed my ancestors to commit crimes against Blacks, Native Americans, and others they deemed “inferior” in order to make things better for themselves. History has judged them harshly, and I fear it may judge us the same.

As a physician I care deeply about my ill patients, but killing in order to help them is something I cannot do. I urge you not to kill another human in my name or the name of my patients.

Thank you,
Jonathan Davis MD


With both major parties giving consistent-life voters poor choices, The Gridbook Blog will be endorsing a 3rd Party Candidate. Stay tuned.

Ortona Italy

One year ago today my wife and I were walking the streets of Ortona Italy, the town on the other side of the world where my grandfather Eduardo Pantaloni grew up. Then we hadn't even yet conceived of the little boy (Eduardo's great-grandson) who I hold in my lap as I write now.

I think of Eduardo (who changed his name to Edward when he immigrated) growing up in Ortona and my little son growing here in my lap. Eduardo died on Christmas day when I was only a little boy. One of my strongest memories is of him telling me about the beautiful farms in the seaside village were he grew up, only a few days before he died.

He has been dead for decades now, and no one in his home town remembers his name. He is even a distant memory to me. It makes me realize that even though I am 30 now I will also someday be gone and forgotten even in the places that were once my home.

This makes me glad that I am a father. My son may not know it now but his great-grandparents who will only exist in his mind as black and white photos have left themselves in my wife and me, and thus their lives project into his own. Similarly I will leave myself in him.

Is Transcendence Bunk?

I am realizing that the importance I place on transcendence is not something many others share. This leads me to wonder if my perspective is hopelessly skewed?

Transcendence has been a unifying theme of things that have mattered in my life. Transcendence: breaking beyond mundane existence and experiencing that which is deepest, most beautiful, divine—even if only for a moment. My most worthwhile experiences (friendship, adventure, love, music, sex, art, literature, sacrifice, learning, suffering, worship, creating) I appreciated partially because of the transcendence I experienced in them. I was not discontented with normal life, instead I saw normal life as a necessary staging ground from which to break through to what is beyond it. I was not searching for some mystery or magic, but I lived daily life more ecstatically. Nor did I think all transcendent experience was inherently good. Transcendence could mislead as well as enlighten, but these moments seemed to me our best evidence that we are not mere animals or mechanisms —that we are fallen children of God.

The problem of my life now is that I feel myself becoming more of a mechanism each day. The responsibilities of being a doctor, home owner, husband, debtor, father have bound me to the daily grind of being a producer and consumer. Although responsibilities provide stability there is little or no transcendence to be found in them. Some days my spirit feels like an ox yolked to a heavy plow.


Ten years ago I was not a consumer but an ecstatic and idealistic mind. All of my friends were similar and we all lived on a diet of dreams. I assumed that the feelings of transcendence we basked in were universal to all of mankind. We scorned those who didn't "suck the marrow out of life." Now all of my old friends have become hopelessly practical people, and don't seem to miss the transcendence in which they once lived. I talk of seeking transcendence and hear it dismissed as the stuff of childhood—something you grow out of. If no longer transcending life is a natural feature of being an adult, why am I the only one uncomfortable with the maturation?


The other day my wife said, “You don't need too much time on your hands. Instead of centering yourself when you rest, you get your head in the clouds. You end up very dissatisfied.” Am I dissatisfied? I had never thought of myself as a discontented person before, but I saw she was right. The thing I strive for is becoming increasingly hard to reach.


Is transcendence bunk or is it the very stuff life is made of? If transcendence truly is life then I am slowly dying of starvation of the soul, but if it is just a childish emotion then I am worrying myself over nothing and should embrace my maturity. As much as transcendence is a sensation of deep meaning, I cannot say if I really understand anything better than others who have had no such experience or put no stock in such things. The feelings of understanding and meaning are almost too deep for words, but if I can't express what I gain from transcendence have I really gained anything at all? Am I enhanced as a person by transcendent experience or is it only a "mental high" full of sound and fury but signifying nothing?


I am in a bit of a quandary. As I grow older the powerful experiences that were once the natural state of my mind become increasingly rare. Should I chase after transcendence or let it go? Am I a pitiful addict trying to reproduce a high that I can never achieve again, or am I doggedly seeking truth, beauty, and meaning in a cynical world that squashes all that is really worthwhile?


I really don't know at this point. I am perplexed. Perhaps those with more wisdom can help me find the answer. Any advice?

I Planted A Child

I was thinking about my son today as I tried to save my dying plants. Right now the man he will become is developing beneath the surface of his infancy. I imagine him putting down the first delicate roots that will deepen to sustain him through the droughts and storms of life.

My recent fitful attempts at gardening brought a disconcerting thought to mind: small early damage can doom a plant. I planted hydrangeas that withered in a late frost. At first they seemed to recover and even grow, but one by one they all died.

Today I was trying to save my shriveling plants from the sweltering heat of a Georgia summer drought. I was out of town so they didn't get any watering. Their new root systems weren't strong enough to reach the deep water like the big white oaks in the front yard. My vegetable garden is lost and many of the trees I planted were withering. I attempted to revive the little maple by the driveway with water, but I wonder if from now on it may always be stunted. Even a redwood I planted last Fall was visibly damaged.

I want my son to grow into a man like a redwood: immovable, deep, self-contained. They grow to become the world's tallest trees, but the little redwood in my back yard is nearly dead after a few weeks of drought.

Of course the principles of gardening are simple and well known. Babies are more complex. Conflicting theories abound on how not to damage their developing souls.

When I hear my baby cry what should I do? One theory tells me I must immediately go to him and comfort him. He will learn love, kindness, and trust from this, otherwise he would grow up cold, distant, unable to connect to another. Another theory tells me as long as he has recently been fed, cleaned, and loved I should let him cry. Self-soothing will develop self-control and patience. Immediately comforting every cry creates self-absorption and a false expectation that the world should always serve him.

The problem with babies is that their rooting takes place beneath the surface. They cannot tell us about their formation, nor will they recall it afterwards. All our theories about their developing souls are speculation, and the vast differences among children make clear patterns difficult to ascertain. Perhaps we flatter ourself to think we are influencing their formation at all. Perhaps they arrive with roots already so deep within the soil of themselves that they are hardier than any fitful weather of infancy.

I wonder if my abilities as a father will be any better than my gardening? I am certain within my love I am already making mistakes. I am reminded of Paul's words “I planted... but God gave the increase.” I can water, fertilize, prune, provide sunlight and shelter, but the life within a growing tree will remain a hidden mystery. It is the same with my son. He is not my own. I pray that God is good to him, and guides him with a steadier hand than my own.

Us Versus Them (politics with no thinking required)

The polarization of American politics has stifled any real progress or discussion. Respectful opposition has been replaced with demonization and name-calling. The free forum of the internet was supposed to liberate us from the hegemony of the two political parties. Instead we got more obnoxious partisan bickering.

Of course, Conservatives and Liberals have real differences worth discussing, but there is little or no discussion online. Political hatreds (such as the Right's vehement disgust toward the Clintons, the Left's similar distain for the Bushes, and various ad hominem attacks and name-calling directed at each party) have replaced political discourse.

No one even tries to understand political thoughts anymore, just label them. Once an idea has been labeled “Right” or “Left” you can reject or accept it based on your affiliations without even having to strain your mind to even give it any real consideration.

A blog like this that often ventures into politics but has no real Right/Left affiliation is an anomaly on the internet. Recently I read a review of my site on Stumble Upon (a social bookmarking site that allows people to vote on any website). The only written review of the site consists of one man giving the site a thumbs down and stating “The guy voted for Bush... not once but TWICE!”

While I did vote for Bush and do not regret it, any reading of the site should reveal that my positions are drastically different from Bush's. I imagine that this man had to do some significant exploration of the site to find my voting history since it is noted in passing on a post that doesn't get much traffic or or have outside links, but thinking about what he was reading didn't seem to be part of this web surfer's approach. I imagine this poor liberal scanning through ideas and posts without giving them any thought until he final found something that made sense. “Two votes for Bush! The writer must be Republican, an enemy. Bad site! Don't consider any of the ideas in these essays! Give it a bad review so no one else reads it either.” Interestingly this is the same site that a conservative acquaintance called me a “pinko commie” after reading.

The truth is I am neither a Conservative or Liberal, but I give a lot of thought to politics—both personal, local, and national. While there certainly are thoughtful people of all political persuasions the vast majority voters have no desire to think about what anyone else says. They only want to win arguments and elections for their side. Having friends who are sincere and intelligent Liberals and Conservatives as well as reading blogs and books from all sorts of political perspectives is what freed me from feeling the need to pick a side. Both sides are right and wrong on a great many things, so I defend what I believe is right and point out the wrongs I see. If most voters aren't open minded enough to even listen to someone outside their own group I fear we will never solve this nation's problems.

On Contraception

With all of the recent discussions of new birth as well as the longstanding defense of the sanctity of life it is important to make a clarification on the issue of contraception. As a whole-hearted supporter of the Pro-life movement I believe it is essential that we recognize human life begins at conception and defend the dignity and rights of all our fellow humans. Unfortunately, many of the most vocal in the Pro-life movement often add to the cause political opposition to access to contraception. Contraception as its name implies prevents conception. While, the responsible use of contraception (and thus sex) is a topic that deserve much introspection and discussion it is not directly a "life issue." While leaving the "right" to kill our fellow humans to our own discretion is something that must be opposed, I believe that leaving decisions such as contraception in the realm of personal ethical choices makes for a better, freer, and more just society.


Contraception, unlike abortion, does not kill. Contraception is a non-violent tool: a tool that can be used wisely or unwisely, but it should not be the goal of the Pro-Life Movement to make everyone wise--it should be to make a society in which we do not kill. Fortunately, the vast majority of pro-life Americans (80% according to a recent poll) favor no restrictions on contraception. These more "pure" pro-lifers, however, are not usually the public face of the pro-life movement. Pro-life advocates that politically oppose contraception re-enforce the rhetoric that seeks to label us as trying to control people's choices rather than save human lives from violence. If we truly desire to save innocents from being murdered we do better to simply oppose killing in the public sphere and leave contraception to discussions of private ethics.


Therefore, today I declare along with other pro-life bloggers (sponsored by TurnTheClockForward) on dozens of blogs that we support access to contraception.

On Midwives

Doctors can be quite useful, but when they are not necessary it may be best to not have them. Last week when my son was born an incredible nurse midwife was beside my wife from the moment she arrived at in her room until almost an hour after our son was born. As a doctor myself I have been in hundreds of deliveries and I have never seen a delivery so calm or a physician so comforting.


There are times when a doctor is needed. In a life-threatening illness a doctor may be the best person to have, but we doctors are trained to act boldly, to fix, to intervene. When there is discomfort but little danger a physician's presence can often disrupt, dismay, and even bring a danger of its own. I think of all the times people bring their sufferings to the ER with minor illnesses such as colds. My training says "It could be a cold or it could be something more dangerous. I need to poke, prod, X-ray, and draw blood just to be sure." The doctor must constantly disturb the patient in order to look for death or disability hiding behind their suffering.

That is what I loved about the midwife. She saw the suffering of birth as part of a natural process. I know she was alert for problems, but unlike a doctor her primary goal was comfort and support. She had a doctor in the hospital on back-up if their were any problems. She didn't have to focus on death. She recognized the suffering as part of a beautiful unveiling of life. In many ways I was jealous of the midwife. I became a doctor due to a rather vague desire to "help people" but often I find my job is more fighting illness than really bringing comfort to people's lives. Comforting people is a side job in medicine, the real responsibility is to find, fight, and manage diseases. I realized watching the midwife that I wish had the ability to stop worrying about disease and focus exclusively on caring.

Doctoring and Parenting

When the midwife found out I was a doctor who had delivered babies in the past she offered for me to assist with the delivery. I declined mainly because I knew my wife would prefer I focus solely on emotional support.

Now it is interesting to realize how much I am shunning any sort of doctoring in my new son's life. I haven't even laid a stethoscope on him to check his heart for murmurs. I am realizing that there is such a difference in perspective that I never want to think as a physician about my child.

A doctor looks for flaws—a parent only sees perfection. A doctor tries to remain objective—a parent unreservedly loves. A doctor prepares for possible future illness and disability—a parent looks at his child's life with optimism. A doctor expects death and decay—a parent lives to hope for his child.

I used to think that being a physician would be be a wonderful asset in my parenting. Now I think I'll leave my doctoring at the hospital, and leave my son's doctoring to his physician. I am his father and I want to be nothing else to him.