The death toll in Burma after a vicious cyclone hit the country this past weekend could reach 60,000, the number of people reported dead or missing, according to the Washington Post.

Because the country is headed by an incompetent, despotic regime, the people are not easily receiving aid. MoveOn.org passed around a link to donate to Burmese monks, who in turn, have been giving food and shelter to the country's poorest people.

These People Scare Me: I was recently perusing the responses to New York Times Magazine's green edition, when I came across this gem:

(Michael) Pollan asserts as self-evident that a small carbon footprint is always a moral good. But suppose a child is very sick and the nearest hospital is 50 miles away. You can ride a horse and the child might die, or take a helicopter and ensure the child lives. In that case, using more fossil fuel is clearly a moral good. Offering this same sort of choice, if played out less dramatically, is why the green movement may fail.

Pollan is asking for human beings to deliberately make their own lives harsher, duller, perhaps even shorter for the sake of an abstraction. Whatever your belief in the merits of cutting carbon emissions, it’s easy to see why this neo-Romantic argument may not win many converts.

Especially inane, though, is Wendell Berry’s suggestion that “specialization” has been bad for humanity. Division of labor has allowed man to rise from savannas and caves to cities, to feed multitudes and to cure deadly disease. Specialization is precisely what will produce the experts who will ultimately figure out how to make cheap energy without fossil fuels. That process, not some Arcadian fantasy that all humanity will voluntarily regress to a semi-industrial state, is the way to a cleaner world.

HAMPTON STEVENS

Kansas City, Kan.

Okay.

Other Strange Encounters: Here is another one of those quirky Berkeley Parents Network letters, although I bet this woman's situation is not as uncommon as we'd like to think:

My husband recently had a one night stand with a woman with whom he previously (about 2 years ago) had a longer-term affair. The one night stand resulted in a pregnancy, and they've decided to keep the baby. The woman lives in another city so he will be parenting from afar - we also have a child together. We started marriage counseling a couple of weeks ago and, at least right now, we both think we'd like to stay together. We definitely have issues outside of this one that we need to work on, and are both committed to doing so. I'm honestly not that hung up on the affair at this point - it's the realization that there will be another child in his life, with another woman, and that child will likely be incorporated into our family in some way, shape, and form in the future. Plus, the fact that the child will be in another city means he will probably spend time away from us, which is hard to handle. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation? This is all very fresh and new and I know my feelings will change over time (because they already have a million times in about 3 weeks!) but I need a little long-term perspective on how this situation might ever really work...thanks!
anon

Whew. This woman sounded remarkably calm for what her husband did. Can't wait for the responses...

Leaving Foster Care: The Washington Post followed around this remarkable young woman as she was leaving the foster care system. At 21-years-old, Marie Willis is learning to live on her own, and is handling it with such aplomb.

What else is in the news? What is on your minds today? Have a good weekend all!

In case you missed it, Newsweek had a cover story on surrogate mothers. It was balanced and offered a lot of new information such as the disproportionate number of surrogate mothers who are young, military wives. They have health insurance that covers the procedure. Also, surrogacy allows them to earn money and help someone.

Despite some people denouncing it as exploitive, it made me think the opposite: I would consider becoming a surrogate for my closest family or friends. Also, if I needed the additional income, I could think of many worse ways to make money than give this wonderful gift to another couple.

An Effed Up Story: This is unspeakably tragic. Despite his wife’s protestations, a Maryland courtroom ruled that a mentally ill man was entitled to see his children. The man in question, Mark Castillo, went to a hotel, drowned the couple’s three children and then tried – unsuccessfully – to kill himself, according to the Washington Post.

He is in custody now. But what troubled me about this story was his history of making threats to his wife, including killing the children. I think I would have skipped town before handing over my children to this man. I can’t imagine what is running through that poor woman’s head right now. Shudder.

What Patient Rights? I was dismayed at the personal conduct of the gynecologist mentioned in this reader’s letter to New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” column. Her gynecologist has asked her to waive her right to sue in favor of a “binding arbitration to settle any potential disputes,” or the ob-gyn will not treat her. Here is why the practice is unethical, according to ethicist, Randy Cohen:

The law may allow it, and (except in an emergency) medical ethics permit doctors to choose their patients, but a doctor’s criteria for choosing are still subject to scrutiny. Your doctor has instituted a dismal policy that compels patients to surrender a basic legal right in order to receive medical care.

If a single physician were so skittish about malpractice suits (or so uncertain of her own skill) that she would see only patients who would forgo access to the courts, no problem: you could walk down the street to another practitioner.

But if all, or nearly all, doctors make the same demand, there’s nowhere else to go; a fundamental right is eradicated. Conduct that is merely inconvenient if pursued by a few people can become intolerable when widely adopted.

Universal healthcare anyone?