Page 10 • September 10, 2020 • Edmond Life & Leisure
Commentary ... We’re on YOUR Side
Fatima’s inspiration I did enjoy the new “Fatima” movie. I’ve heard there are some theaters showing it, but because of the virus, the film folks are letting us stream directly to our home. It comes at a $20 Steve Gust price. But I’ve been to enough movies to know you’d spend a lot more than that at theater. “Fatima,” is the 1917 story of Fatima, Portugal, where three children claimed to be visited by the Blessed Mother of Christ. I tend to believe them, so maybe I shouldn’t say claim. Mary told the children to meet her at a particular site for five more months. At the end of the sixth month, she promised to show the world a miracle. That turned out to be the “Miracle of the Sun.” The sun danced around and then appeared to be on a direct collusion court with earth. Needless to say, that scared many of the people who were there. Eventually the sun settled back down. That huge crowd has been esti-
mated to be somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 Mary reportedly appeared to the children so the youngsters could tell the world to repent for its sins and draw closer to God. Sadly, we don’t seem to have learned a lot from the warnings and messages. We still seem to insult God more than we should. There is a scene where Mary shows the children what hell looks like. It gives them quite a fright eventhough all three were assured by the Blessed Mother that they would go to heaven. Yet hell is also a sober reminder for all of us. Despite this incredible event in 1917, there are still millions who are not believers. It’s like what Mary told the children in the film. I may be paraphasing here, but she said no amount of evidence or miracles would be enough to convince some people. That is sad also. Yet what isn’t sad is how inspirational Fatima is. The movie is a good reminder of faith and God. (Steve Gust, editor of Edmond Life & Leisure, may be reached at news@edmondpaper.com)
Criminal justice reform going before the voters By The Oklahoman Editorial Board Oklahoma voters have supported criminal justice reforms in recent years and are being asked to do so again in November, this time with a state question that, if approved, would affect prison terms for repeat nonviolent offenders. State Question 805 focuses on sentence enhancements. If approved, it would prohibit the use of prior felony convictions to enhance sentences in nonviolent cases, and would let those serving time for nonviolent crimes who were sentenced with an enhancement to petition the court to have their sentences reduced. SQ 805 is the work of Oklahomans for Sentencing Reform, a bipartisan group that also led the
push in 2016 for State Questions 780 and 781, reform measures that voters approved. Backers of SQ 805 cite data showing that compared with other states, Oklahoma inmates can spend 70% longer locked up for property crimes and nearly 80% longer for drug crimes because of enhancements, which are at the discretion of prosecutors. An analysis by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank, of records from criminal convictions found that enhancements are used in four out of five cases where they are available, resulting in sentences that, on average, are 36% longer than those without the enhancement. Approval of SQ 805 should reduce the prison population by 8.5% in
the next decade, the OCPA said, and reduce expenditures by $45 million to $186 million. “A reasonable projection is that Oklahoma taxpayers would save about $142 million over a decade,” the think tank said. The proposal does not sit well with the District Attorneys Council. Its chairman, Jason Hicks, has said punishment should be harsher for someone who has committed additional offenses. Hicks also argues that public safety would be compromised by approval of SQ 805. At least one prosecutor, however, supports SQ 805. Allan Grubb, DA for Pottawatomie and Lincoln counties, says the proposal does not limit prosecutors’ discretion and would not affect misdemeanor enhancements. Addressing a concern raised by some of his colleagues, Grubb wrote in The Oklahoman recently that SQ 805 “will not harm domestic violence survivors. … SQ 805 will still allow us to seek maximum sentences or decide to charge perpetrators of abuse with a violent offense.” The 2016 reforms approved by voters were changes to statutes, and thus can be revised by the Legislature. SQ 805 would amend the state constitution, meaning any later change would require another vote of the people. Gov. Kevin Stitt is among those who oppose SQ 805 for that reason, saying a better solution would be “a thoughtful, well-researched sentencing code” from the Legislature. That would be ideal. However, lawmakers haven’t shown much of a willingness to take on such reforms, leaving voters to decide the issue for themselves in November.
Why a working mom put kids in school By Anastasia Boden Insidesources.com Last month, I put my kids back into daycare. Is it because I don’t care about my kids and dismiss the risk of COVID-19? Of course not. I care deeply about the well-being of my children and I take the human consequences of the pandemic seriously. But I can also calculate risk and measure tradeoffs. I’ve read the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations, which suggest that the harms caused by remote learning (like social isolation and severe learning loss) outweigh the risk of coronavirus to children. I’ve read the studiesdemonstrating that remote learning has negative long-term effects on kids, which can lead to “poorer, shorter, less fulfilling lives.” Based on my discussions with our school’s administrators and teachers, I’m confident they have crafted a solid plan to reduce the potential risk of infection through social distancing, masks
and common sense. And I’m willing to take responsibility for my choice. I also receive tremendous satisfaction from doing my job and doing it well, and I know I cannot do it as well when my kids are at home. There’s been a fair amount of sneering at working parents, as if they’re malicious for wanting to work when the reality is that they’re working to be productive, to provide for their families, to maintain their mental health, and to do the best they can for their children. Not to mention that not all jobs can be performed on a remote basis. That’s not to say it’s an easy choice. Putting my kids back in school has meant having to endure painful separation from family members and friends who don’t share the same level of risk tolerance, or who, because of their age or health status, cannot risk any level of exposure. When my father was hospitalized last month with a rare auto-immune disease, I wasn’t able to visit him in part because my kids were in school. Not every-
Letters to the Editor policy We love mail, especially mail from Edmond Life & Leisure readers with complaints, compliments or comments about what they read here. The rules, even for e-mail letters: 1) You must tell us your full name; 2) You must give us your complete address and phone numbers (but we will identify you only by name); and 3) We reserve the right to edit letters for length, clarity and taste (our taste). Send mail to Letter to the Editor, Edmond Life & Leisure, 107 S. Broadway, Edmond, OK 73034, or fax to 340-3384 or e-mail to news@edmondpaper.com.
one would make the same choice, but that’s what makes us individuals. If my kids were just a few years older, I wouldn’t have the choice to return them to school, because in California (where I live), Gov. Gavin Newsom has effectively decided to close all schools, regardless of what parents, local health authorities or individual teachers want. The idea of one person choosing for every man, woman and child whether to go back to school is contrary to fundamental American ideals. Embedded in our Constitution is the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of one’s children. As the Supreme Court has stated, “the child is not the mere creature of the state.” Respect for people’s autonomy requires us to “presume that fit parents act in the best interests of their children,” leaving the state with little reason to “inject itself into the private realm of the family” or to upset parental choices. Newsom’s one-size-fits-all solution is a vast assumption of power that takes rational debate out of the public sphere. And it deprives people of the ability to decide what’s best for themselves and to choose (or to create) innovative solutions that fit their own needs. There is no one “correct” choice about whether to send children to schools because there are tradeoffs to each option. The risk of infection is real, and we’re still learning about the effect of COVID on kids. The risks created by closing schools to in-person learning are also real, particularly for kids from lower-income families (who get their only meals from school), or for specialneeds children (for whom remote learning will
See Mom, Page 11
