Been awhile. But I intend to contribute to the useless amount of crap circling the internet more frequently, because, why not? Actually, it leads right in to my topic.
I have some thing to say. It is "Mother's Day." Yes, I have a mother, and she is fine. I am not a mother: not by chance, not by choice. I am nearly (gasp) 50, and I have no offspring. If I had met my soul mate before now, I'd might have kids. I'm not opposed to kids, this was never a "statement." I was unwilling to have a baby for its own sake. Or for my sake. So, for the plethora of "reasons," I have no offspring.
I have many friends who, for whatever reason of theirs, also have no kids. I am not alone. It is apparently a growing section of the population I belong to: single women, no kids. Woo-hoo. I feel so loved.
Let me also say, for the record, I have no regrets. Had I had a kid, it would've been with one of the terrible people I dated, so both of us, me and my potential child, dodged a bullet. Of this I am confident. All the men I "dated" (except the latest) were phenomenally egotistic crap versions of humans, and since I already grew up with one of those, I really am done. So suffice it to say, I have no problem with this, having made my peace with it long ago.
But. (And there's always a but, isn't there?) I must say, there is a great deal of crowing about this, not from the kids, or the partner, but from the woman who did the birth-giving. Such a sacrifice she made, and she wouldn't change it for anything in the world. Really? Let's be honest. You wouldn't change it for ANYTHING? Really? REALLY?? Okay. Let's start with the easy stuff: I NEVER get up in the middle of the night to attend to anybody. (Unless my cat barfs, which is rare.) Never. My sleep is never interrupted by someone who cannot survive without my attention.
I never have to make a sacrifice of time, that valuable thing we all have too little of, because someone who demands my attention has a toothache. Or a bad dream. Or a bad grade. Or a tiff with their best friend. Or a poopy diaper. Never. My time is all my own. Always.
I never have to give my money to something I don't want. Like cheerleading camp. Or the best preschool. Or braces. Or to take care of some anomaly that life throws at us all. My money is my own, what little there is of it.
So there's three: no loss of sleep, no sacrifice of time, no giving of my money.
Yes, those are things that to some of you might sound selfish. But I bet, if given the chance and if nobody knew, some of you may want very much to be in my position. And it's okay to admit that you're jealous. I have things you will NEVER have. You gave all that up for that diaper-shitting, money-sucking, time-using, sleep-depriving, silence-shattering thing you gave birth to. I have no such drain on my resources. I drain my own resource, thank you. And I love every minute of it.
My path has as much merit as yours. No, there isn't a day to honor those of us who decided not to bring another baby into this world, or felt so strongly about ourselves (or our partners) that we felt we needed to re-create in order to prove our worth to the world. Or to carry on the family name, or because your mother needed a grandchild, or whatever your reason was. So who has the cred? You or me? Well, you do have a day named for you. But my whole life is actually mine, and I don't need one day to celebrate that, or to make others celebrate it. I have every day to enjoy that I don't have anyone else I have total responsibility for fucking up.
So days like this, when what seems like the entire world focuses on the women who spit out a baby, can be a little sickening to people like us, who made a different choice. We could have been in your group, but we chose not to. Did you choose? If you did, great. If you didn't sorry. But please, don't look down on those of us who made a different choice. Don't feel sorry for us, don't regale us with tales of how you "wouldn't change it for all the world" and how your kids were the "best thing that ever happened to you." I don't believe that. I believe you are making the best of a situation you realized, at some point, was not what you meant. I don't believe you wouldn't trade it. I don't believe it was the best thing that ever happened to you. Unless you listen to what I say here, now:
Not having a kid was the BEST choice I ever made. And I don't regret a minute of it.
Got that?
Swirls
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A Certain Hell
I remember it well. Because I'm a news junkie, I watched every minute on every channel of the coverage. I was aghast. Things were going from bad to worse, and it was all captured on video and broadcast to every home in the nation. But who was really paying attention?
Katrina hit five years ago. NBC and Brian Williams is doing a kind of retrospect. It brought back a particular memory of something that was disturbing to me. But it didn't just happen to me; it was happening all over the place.
I was sitting at a lunch table in September of 2005, four days after the levees broke. I had been watching the horrors and, as the self-appointed "current event conversationalist," I said to my companions, "have you seen what's happening in New Orleans?"
They both looked at me quizzically. "Well, yeah, we know there was a hurricane..."
"No, I mean the levees," I explained. "They broke, and large parts of the city are under 10 feet of water or more, and people are stranded all over the place, and they don't have food, or water..."
And one of them interrupted, "But FEMA is taking care of them, right?" Because we were used to seeing these big storms and watching FEMA run right in and hand out the food and water and medical supplies and then everything was 'back to normal' within what seemed like minutes.
"No! FEMA is not there, no one is getting supplies to them, and there's looting and people firing at rescuers and half the police force seems to have disappeared and people are dying in the streets and it's horrible! And the government isn't doing anything!"
They both still looked at me, like they were waiting for the punch line. I must be kidding, nothing like that happens here. "It looks like a third world country," I said. Clearly, they couldn't believe me. I understood; I didn't have any video to show them.
And the rest of the country was probably feeling the same thing: confusion. The president was seen slapping ole what's his name on the back and saying, "And Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job..." Brown was the FEMA director. He lasted about another week or so, then checked out. This whole rescuing thing is a lot harder in person than it is on tv! So he left. He never did do a "heck of a " anything. He's now a radio talk show host in Denver. A job in communication. Sweet.
And Bush, it turned out, was being shown what was happening, but he didn't move his butt, either. No one had a handle on things, as it turned out. But at the time, the government was saying everything was fine and was proceeding as planned and the news was reporting the exact opposite. A cognitive dissonance: something we learned in the Vietnam war. You can be told one thing, and be shown something completely different. Are you going to believe your eyes, or the lie I'm going to tell you?
The news from every major channel was broadcasting the video. The camera found people stranded on rooftops, holding signs with desperate words "help us!" The camera witnessed dead bodies floating in the horrible, oil-stained, sewer-filled wretched water. The camera spotted scared-out-of-their-mind pets, the family member you can't ever seem to take with you. The camera watched rescues of old people, of sick people, of babies, of pets; it captured the thousands of people crying in pain and anguish, some sitting with relatives right where they had dropped dead with no help and no place to move them; it recorded babies crying, wearily, wearing days old, used diapers, or not wearing any diapers at all, with mothers who could barely deal with their baby's misery much less their own and the heartache of fathers unable to do anything to help their family; it saw the huge piles of garbage everywhere as people were forced to live in their own filth and excrement, the facilities, worn out and used up so quickly in this emergency as to be completely useless; it witnessed the death: people who hadn't had the medical attention (or maybe just some water!) to survive what became days and days and days of pure torture. Temperatures reaching 100 degrees, with the typical Gulf Coast humidity, made trying to exist without water literally killer. It was awful to watch. It must have been a certain hell to survive.
And where was the "government"? Stumbling over themselves, accusing each other, delivering mixed messages and receiving bad information, trying to create a soothing aura of calm and control. It seemed that, if you didn't have access to the pictures and the on-the-street reporting, you might be lulled into thinking, as my friends evidently were, that everything was going as planned. But that was a lie. Over and over, the people in charge lied, misled, misdirected, or framed their actions in the context of "we are doing" rather than "we can not or have not." And even the people in the midst of the horror believed them, to their detriment. The victims believed that "help was on the way." The government was a lie.
So five years later, we look at what's been done and what's not been done and we remember what's been forgotten, who's survived and who hasn't, what was said and what wasn't, what the truth really was, and what the truth wasn't. It was terrible to watch all that pain and anguish then. It was terrible to watch it again.
Next time? Will there be a next time? Of course there will be, to someone, somewhere. And the government will have some "truth" to sell to us. And hopefully we'll also have the video. We'll see if they match.
And maybe next time I'll have instant access to the video so I can offer the proof.
Katrina hit five years ago. NBC and Brian Williams is doing a kind of retrospect. It brought back a particular memory of something that was disturbing to me. But it didn't just happen to me; it was happening all over the place.
I was sitting at a lunch table in September of 2005, four days after the levees broke. I had been watching the horrors and, as the self-appointed "current event conversationalist," I said to my companions, "have you seen what's happening in New Orleans?"
They both looked at me quizzically. "Well, yeah, we know there was a hurricane..."
"No, I mean the levees," I explained. "They broke, and large parts of the city are under 10 feet of water or more, and people are stranded all over the place, and they don't have food, or water..."
And one of them interrupted, "But FEMA is taking care of them, right?" Because we were used to seeing these big storms and watching FEMA run right in and hand out the food and water and medical supplies and then everything was 'back to normal' within what seemed like minutes.
"No! FEMA is not there, no one is getting supplies to them, and there's looting and people firing at rescuers and half the police force seems to have disappeared and people are dying in the streets and it's horrible! And the government isn't doing anything!"
They both still looked at me, like they were waiting for the punch line. I must be kidding, nothing like that happens here. "It looks like a third world country," I said. Clearly, they couldn't believe me. I understood; I didn't have any video to show them.
And the rest of the country was probably feeling the same thing: confusion. The president was seen slapping ole what's his name on the back and saying, "And Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job..." Brown was the FEMA director. He lasted about another week or so, then checked out. This whole rescuing thing is a lot harder in person than it is on tv! So he left. He never did do a "heck of a " anything. He's now a radio talk show host in Denver. A job in communication. Sweet.
And Bush, it turned out, was being shown what was happening, but he didn't move his butt, either. No one had a handle on things, as it turned out. But at the time, the government was saying everything was fine and was proceeding as planned and the news was reporting the exact opposite. A cognitive dissonance: something we learned in the Vietnam war. You can be told one thing, and be shown something completely different. Are you going to believe your eyes, or the lie I'm going to tell you?
The news from every major channel was broadcasting the video. The camera found people stranded on rooftops, holding signs with desperate words "help us!" The camera witnessed dead bodies floating in the horrible, oil-stained, sewer-filled wretched water. The camera spotted scared-out-of-their-mind pets, the family member you can't ever seem to take with you. The camera watched rescues of old people, of sick people, of babies, of pets; it captured the thousands of people crying in pain and anguish, some sitting with relatives right where they had dropped dead with no help and no place to move them; it recorded babies crying, wearily, wearing days old, used diapers, or not wearing any diapers at all, with mothers who could barely deal with their baby's misery much less their own and the heartache of fathers unable to do anything to help their family; it saw the huge piles of garbage everywhere as people were forced to live in their own filth and excrement, the facilities, worn out and used up so quickly in this emergency as to be completely useless; it witnessed the death: people who hadn't had the medical attention (or maybe just some water!) to survive what became days and days and days of pure torture. Temperatures reaching 100 degrees, with the typical Gulf Coast humidity, made trying to exist without water literally killer. It was awful to watch. It must have been a certain hell to survive.
And where was the "government"? Stumbling over themselves, accusing each other, delivering mixed messages and receiving bad information, trying to create a soothing aura of calm and control. It seemed that, if you didn't have access to the pictures and the on-the-street reporting, you might be lulled into thinking, as my friends evidently were, that everything was going as planned. But that was a lie. Over and over, the people in charge lied, misled, misdirected, or framed their actions in the context of "we are doing" rather than "we can not or have not." And even the people in the midst of the horror believed them, to their detriment. The victims believed that "help was on the way." The government was a lie.
So five years later, we look at what's been done and what's not been done and we remember what's been forgotten, who's survived and who hasn't, what was said and what wasn't, what the truth really was, and what the truth wasn't. It was terrible to watch all that pain and anguish then. It was terrible to watch it again.
Next time? Will there be a next time? Of course there will be, to someone, somewhere. And the government will have some "truth" to sell to us. And hopefully we'll also have the video. We'll see if they match.
And maybe next time I'll have instant access to the video so I can offer the proof.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
My Question Is
I keep finding things to write about, only to read the "definitive" article on it. Hmm. Nothing left to say. Well, that's not so good for the exercising the ole writing muscle. So I'm going to try something else. I have these questions about incidents and events, and I thought I'd just throw them here. So there.
McCrystal Resigns, Obama Accepts
My question is: has anyone asked General McCrystal why he let that article go to print? Was it an easy way out of something he no longer believed in? Did he go mad? Do the comments align with his character? May there be a physical reason for this, like a tumor or something? This isn't the first time McCrystal's been to the woodshed. He knew the consequences. Was this an ego thing? Wasn't there any other way out, other than making this big stink? Why doesn't anyone ask why?
McDonald's May be Forced to Shit-Can the Happy Meal Toy
After how many years of happy meals and toys promoting the latest blockbuster movie, Mickey D's may have to stop putting toys in happy meals. Why? Because they contribute (indirectly) to the weight/health problems of our youth. No, really. Here's where I become a Libertarian.
McDonald's isn't doing anything wrong, and should not be forced to stop making happy meals, or putting toys in them. It isn't their responsibility to educate people about how perfectly awful their "food" is. And it isn't the government's responsibility, either, to enforce a ridiculous edict. I'm all about making them provide nutrition information very public and very available. "Hey, kids! Can you say, 'cholesterol'?"
Of course, the lawsuit is supposed to be all about the toys, and that the free (and serial) toy is what the kids want. Not the food, not the fun on the box, not the "healthy alternatives"-- the toys. How far is it, do you suppose, before it'll be about banning the whole happy meal? Then what will desperate parents do? McDonald's has a clown for a brand, for f**k's sake! Its whole marketing department has been, for years, geared toward getting the kids to beg the parents to stop at McD's! All I'm saying is, marketing to children is evil, and those people have a special place in hell, but why stop at McDonny's? What about Toys R Us? They market toys to kids. Breakfast cereals? IPods? Video games? What happens when the item is both an adult toy and a kid toy?
So my question is: will we ever learn not to blame the mirror for what we find abhorrent in ourselves? C'mon, people. Try find a little personal responsibility.
Salazar Promises Response to Judge's Ruling
In case you've been under the rock of real life, here's a recap: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed a six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the U.S. in response to a BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. Rig related companies cried foul (HA! That's rich, huh?) citing loss of profit, jobs, etc., and took it to court. The judge, with ties to big oil, sided with the oil companies and voided the moratorium. (Can he do that?) Anyway, Sec Salazar promised to reinstate soon.
My question is: If deepwater drilling has another accident, and people die, to whom will the victims complain? Could they march into that courtroom and lynch that dumb-ass judge? The government would be right if they were to wash their hands of the responsibility with a well-placed "told ya so", but of course, that's what we have a government for, right? To protect us from ourselves, and those who want to do us harm? I can hardly believe this. Have we no ability to learn from our VERY RECENT past?
The judge said something ridiculous like: do we ground all planes when one blows up? (Well, actually, yes, we have done something similar, if it's thought to be a mechanical problem.) Do we take all the cars off the road when there's a deadly crash? (Was he alive during the recent Toyota mechanical mishap?) His examples were ridiculous, because, yes, we do stop doing certain things in response to them blowing up, in order to find the cause. We stopped sending folks into space when the Challenger blew up. Wonder why.... oh yeah! IT BLEW UP. And they didn't want it to happen again! So Judge, that's exactly what we do. We stop and try to figure out why. I find that reasonable, even smart. And President Obama got BP to pony up for those rig workers put on hiatus, exactly as he should. Smart. But you, Judge, with big oil ties, NOT so smart. Certainly not smart enough to recuse himself, much less make such a stupid ruling. But thank you for trying to let us kill ourselves.
That's all we really want, anyway. The freedom to kill ourselves and each other, while making tons of money. And then complain if the government doesn't let us.
McCrystal Resigns, Obama Accepts
My question is: has anyone asked General McCrystal why he let that article go to print? Was it an easy way out of something he no longer believed in? Did he go mad? Do the comments align with his character? May there be a physical reason for this, like a tumor or something? This isn't the first time McCrystal's been to the woodshed. He knew the consequences. Was this an ego thing? Wasn't there any other way out, other than making this big stink? Why doesn't anyone ask why?
McDonald's May be Forced to Shit-Can the Happy Meal Toy
After how many years of happy meals and toys promoting the latest blockbuster movie, Mickey D's may have to stop putting toys in happy meals. Why? Because they contribute (indirectly) to the weight/health problems of our youth. No, really. Here's where I become a Libertarian.
McDonald's isn't doing anything wrong, and should not be forced to stop making happy meals, or putting toys in them. It isn't their responsibility to educate people about how perfectly awful their "food" is. And it isn't the government's responsibility, either, to enforce a ridiculous edict. I'm all about making them provide nutrition information very public and very available. "Hey, kids! Can you say, 'cholesterol'?"
Of course, the lawsuit is supposed to be all about the toys, and that the free (and serial) toy is what the kids want. Not the food, not the fun on the box, not the "healthy alternatives"-- the toys. How far is it, do you suppose, before it'll be about banning the whole happy meal? Then what will desperate parents do? McDonald's has a clown for a brand, for f**k's sake! Its whole marketing department has been, for years, geared toward getting the kids to beg the parents to stop at McD's! All I'm saying is, marketing to children is evil, and those people have a special place in hell, but why stop at McDonny's? What about Toys R Us? They market toys to kids. Breakfast cereals? IPods? Video games? What happens when the item is both an adult toy and a kid toy?
So my question is: will we ever learn not to blame the mirror for what we find abhorrent in ourselves? C'mon, people. Try find a little personal responsibility.
Salazar Promises Response to Judge's Ruling
In case you've been under the rock of real life, here's a recap: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed a six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the U.S. in response to a BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. Rig related companies cried foul (HA! That's rich, huh?) citing loss of profit, jobs, etc., and took it to court. The judge, with ties to big oil, sided with the oil companies and voided the moratorium. (Can he do that?) Anyway, Sec Salazar promised to reinstate soon.
My question is: If deepwater drilling has another accident, and people die, to whom will the victims complain? Could they march into that courtroom and lynch that dumb-ass judge? The government would be right if they were to wash their hands of the responsibility with a well-placed "told ya so", but of course, that's what we have a government for, right? To protect us from ourselves, and those who want to do us harm? I can hardly believe this. Have we no ability to learn from our VERY RECENT past?
The judge said something ridiculous like: do we ground all planes when one blows up? (Well, actually, yes, we have done something similar, if it's thought to be a mechanical problem.) Do we take all the cars off the road when there's a deadly crash? (Was he alive during the recent Toyota mechanical mishap?) His examples were ridiculous, because, yes, we do stop doing certain things in response to them blowing up, in order to find the cause. We stopped sending folks into space when the Challenger blew up. Wonder why.... oh yeah! IT BLEW UP. And they didn't want it to happen again! So Judge, that's exactly what we do. We stop and try to figure out why. I find that reasonable, even smart. And President Obama got BP to pony up for those rig workers put on hiatus, exactly as he should. Smart. But you, Judge, with big oil ties, NOT so smart. Certainly not smart enough to recuse himself, much less make such a stupid ruling. But thank you for trying to let us kill ourselves.
That's all we really want, anyway. The freedom to kill ourselves and each other, while making tons of money. And then complain if the government doesn't let us.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Circus Behavior, Klan Intentions?
Tea Party "Protests"
"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams."
WHAT?!
"But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s. "
40 years ago, these kinds of epithets were spewed at people, in hatred, distrust, and fear. But that's not how we do things today, is it? Is this how we try to talk to our representatives? Is this how we talk to each other? Will this be how we teach our children to talk?
This is deeply troubling to me. Check this out:
Tea Party = Ku Klux Klan
Yes, it's propaganda. Until today, and the news that these wretched words were hurled at our representatives, I thought the analogy went a bit far. Now, I'm not sure. Does the phrase "mob mentality" mean anything? First signs, then words; actions aren't far behind.
If you visit any right-wing website, you'll find more racist, sexist diatribes than you ever thought existed. You won't find this kind of conversation on left-wing sites. Where is civil discourse?
Does anyone remember civil discourse? It is a back-and-forth conversation "that stays within the realm of rational decency. For a discourse to stay within the realm of rational decency, the people involved must follow the requirements of sound rational thinking enough to fit the occasion - even when conforming is inconvenient. Civil discourse is a non-totalitarian approach to mutual problem solving. It is a looser term than 'sound rational thinking' but presupposes enough commitment to sound reasoning to resolve the problem at hand in a cordial manner. Civil discourse can accommodate minor infractions and still be civil. Civil discourse is a moral interaction because it presupposes ethical standards that those involved should follow."
The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking
These people really scare me.
"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams."
WHAT?!
"But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s. "
40 years ago, these kinds of epithets were spewed at people, in hatred, distrust, and fear. But that's not how we do things today, is it? Is this how we try to talk to our representatives? Is this how we talk to each other? Will this be how we teach our children to talk?
This is deeply troubling to me. Check this out:
Tea Party = Ku Klux Klan
Yes, it's propaganda. Until today, and the news that these wretched words were hurled at our representatives, I thought the analogy went a bit far. Now, I'm not sure. Does the phrase "mob mentality" mean anything? First signs, then words; actions aren't far behind.
If you visit any right-wing website, you'll find more racist, sexist diatribes than you ever thought existed. You won't find this kind of conversation on left-wing sites. Where is civil discourse?
Does anyone remember civil discourse? It is a back-and-forth conversation "that stays within the realm of rational decency. For a discourse to stay within the realm of rational decency, the people involved must follow the requirements of sound rational thinking enough to fit the occasion - even when conforming is inconvenient. Civil discourse is a non-totalitarian approach to mutual problem solving. It is a looser term than 'sound rational thinking' but presupposes enough commitment to sound reasoning to resolve the problem at hand in a cordial manner. Civil discourse can accommodate minor infractions and still be civil. Civil discourse is a moral interaction because it presupposes ethical standards that those involved should follow."
The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking
These people really scare me.
When the Circuses Came to Town
New Left Media, a couple of earnest-looking chaps with cameras and a microphone, wander out among the protesters in front of the Capitol building and take the temperature. Worth checking out:
Two Circuses, complete with two sets of Clowns.
This NEW LEFT MEDIA film was produced and edited by Chase Whiteside (interviewer) and Erick Stoll (camera operator) with additional camera work from Zac Sleeth. Don't you just wish you could've tagged along?
Two Circuses, complete with two sets of Clowns.
This NEW LEFT MEDIA film was produced and edited by Chase Whiteside (interviewer) and Erick Stoll (camera operator) with additional camera work from Zac Sleeth. Don't you just wish you could've tagged along?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Health Care Reform: Lies and the Truth
Here are some of the lies I've heard:
There is no health care crisis.
The Truth: Roughly 25 million Americans were under-insured in 2007.
The health care system currently works fine.
The Truth: Insurance companies currently cancel policies when their insured customers need treatment.
Health care reform will impose rationing.
The Truth: Insurance companies already ration care.
Health care reform provides for “death panels.”
The Truth: "Death panel" claims have been conclusively discredited—what it does is make end-of-life discussions with doctors be paid for by health insurance.
Under health care reform, you will be denied care, and it will be given to undocumented immigrants instead.
The Truth: The bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance.
Health care reform will raise your taxes.
The Truth: Not unless you earn over 350,000 a year jointly, or 280,000 as a single filer.
Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit.
The Truth: CBO found that House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion.
House bill would ban private individual insurance.
The Truth: Individual private health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the exchange and subject to those regulations. The bill does not "outlaw" private individual insurance.
President Obama and the Democrats are pushing "socialized medicine."
The Truth: But as the Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, recent progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The Veteran Health Administration has a truly “socialized medicine system.”
Government can't be trusted to run a health care program.
The Truth: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance, and the government, through the Veteran Health Administration, currently provides the "best care anywhere."
The health care reform will put the government between my doctor and me.
The Truth: Insurance companies, entities that make decisions based on cost, not health, are already “between my doctor and me.” There is corruption, incompetency, and greed everywhere, so if the choice is between a for-profit company and a not-for-profit government agency to decide what I need, I think the choice should be obvious.
(Information from Media Matters for America)
Below is a summary of a summary by Mike Kruger, from the following website:
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:
Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.
• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
• For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option.
• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care.
• Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.
• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care.
• It will cap out-of-pocket expenses to protect every American from bankruptcy.
• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption. Think about car insurance. The more people paying in, the less our premiums go up.
• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.
• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
• The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit.
• It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.
• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program.
It doesn’t include a public option (“socialized”: like the VHA); it doesn’t include a single payer system (like Medicare and Medicaid). It isn’t a simple bill; it tries to do a lot of things. Maybe it will need to be revised almost immediately. But if we don’t do something, this whole country goes down in economic flames, leaving the insurance companies with the pot of gold. Of course, it isn't a good long-term strategy, is it, if eventually no one can afford their policies.
There is no health care crisis.
The Truth: Roughly 25 million Americans were under-insured in 2007.
The health care system currently works fine.
The Truth: Insurance companies currently cancel policies when their insured customers need treatment.
Health care reform will impose rationing.
The Truth: Insurance companies already ration care.
Health care reform provides for “death panels.”
The Truth: "Death panel" claims have been conclusively discredited—what it does is make end-of-life discussions with doctors be paid for by health insurance.
Under health care reform, you will be denied care, and it will be given to undocumented immigrants instead.
The Truth: The bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance.
Health care reform will raise your taxes.
The Truth: Not unless you earn over 350,000 a year jointly, or 280,000 as a single filer.
Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit.
The Truth: CBO found that House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion.
House bill would ban private individual insurance.
The Truth: Individual private health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the exchange and subject to those regulations. The bill does not "outlaw" private individual insurance.
President Obama and the Democrats are pushing "socialized medicine."
The Truth: But as the Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, recent progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The Veteran Health Administration has a truly “socialized medicine system.”
Government can't be trusted to run a health care program.
The Truth: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance, and the government, through the Veteran Health Administration, currently provides the "best care anywhere."
The health care reform will put the government between my doctor and me.
The Truth: Insurance companies, entities that make decisions based on cost, not health, are already “between my doctor and me.” There is corruption, incompetency, and greed everywhere, so if the choice is between a for-profit company and a not-for-profit government agency to decide what I need, I think the choice should be obvious.
(Information from Media Matters for America)
Below is a summary of a summary by Mike Kruger, from the following website:
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:
Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.
• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
• For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option.
• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care.
• Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.
• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care.
• It will cap out-of-pocket expenses to protect every American from bankruptcy.
• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption. Think about car insurance. The more people paying in, the less our premiums go up.
• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.
• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
• The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit.
• It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.
• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program.
It doesn’t include a public option (“socialized”: like the VHA); it doesn’t include a single payer system (like Medicare and Medicaid). It isn’t a simple bill; it tries to do a lot of things. Maybe it will need to be revised almost immediately. But if we don’t do something, this whole country goes down in economic flames, leaving the insurance companies with the pot of gold. Of course, it isn't a good long-term strategy, is it, if eventually no one can afford their policies.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Yelling at Tornados
Nothing personal, but I'm a girl, and I tend to see things in girl terms. So that's my full disclosure. No other hidden events or agendas. No bad experiences in my past. I just don't want to see things in a gender-neutral manner, when it's clear to me what the problem is. And there's already plenty of that. (Like when you see a high-speed chase on tv, and the anchors are often trying to be gender-neutral when referring to the suspect: c'mon. It's a guy. How many women do you know who would put that many people in danger? Even under the influence? There are whole shows dedicated to exultation of this dangerous male behavior.) I'm gonna rant, and I make no apologies. So that's Caveat 1.
For centuries, this has happened. It will continue to happen, regardless of extreme punishments, public opinions, or societal pressure. So, Caveat 2: I realize I'm yelling into a tornado. I'm going to yell, anyway.
I'm talking about male aggression. And particularly against women. I really don't care if all men maim each other, or rape each other, or kill each other. Really, don't care. They can go ahead. Argument 1: Yes, there are decent males on the planet who don't deserve this, but where are these guys when the bad ones wreak havoc? Hmm? (Unless it's your daughter, are you out looking? Are you speaking out? Are you even squelching the bad locker room jokes about rape and woman-centered hatred? Really?)
What brings this up in me, like vomit, is seeing, time after time, girls and women disappear, only to be found dead in a creek, dead in a ditch, dead in the trash. Argument 2: Sometimes it's a woman perp. Rarely, but sometimes. Come on, though. That is such a low percent as to be a ridiculous argument. It ain't us, girls. It's them. And we get it from them.
So today's headlines include 2 dead little girls, and 1 missing young woman. That's just for today, Oct. 23, 2009, and only what we're hearing about on the national cable channels. There's 7 year-old Somer Thompson, who was walking home after school in Florida, and was found in a landfill. Elizabeth Olten, a 9 year-old girl, who went missing Wednesday on a walk home from a friend's house in St. Martins, Missouri. Her body was found in the woods. Morgan Harrington, a 20 year-old college student, went missing at a concert, and the case is now a criminal investigation. (We haven't heard yet about the sexual abuse the girls may have gone through.) That's just a few of the many girls and women that go missing or are found dead or are put in the hospital every every every minute of every day. All the time.
Finally, I come to the point. I'm calling for this: every male who touches, in anger, any female of any age must face the possibility (or probability, if I was in charge) of chemical castration, surgical castration, or penectomy (surgical removal of the penis). Period. How long would it take, do ya think, for them to take this problem seriously? If you hit a woman, if you rape a girl, if you harm an elderly woman, you would be charged with "violence against the female gender" call it a hate crime, full penalty under the law. Or prison for life, of you prefer. That's it. For any culture, any religion (Are you listening, Afghanistan?), any place on the planet earth. International law. How long? A year? A week? 20 minutes?
And while I'm at it, full reproductive rights for women. Everywhere. So that the killing of baby girls is punishable by death, or maybe we'll just abort the girl-killer's brain. And if the decisions for such things are made by women, always, I think it wouldn't take long for things to change. So here's my plan:
If we just
For centuries, this has happened. It will continue to happen, regardless of extreme punishments, public opinions, or societal pressure. So, Caveat 2: I realize I'm yelling into a tornado. I'm going to yell, anyway.
I'm talking about male aggression. And particularly against women. I really don't care if all men maim each other, or rape each other, or kill each other. Really, don't care. They can go ahead. Argument 1: Yes, there are decent males on the planet who don't deserve this, but where are these guys when the bad ones wreak havoc? Hmm? (Unless it's your daughter, are you out looking? Are you speaking out? Are you even squelching the bad locker room jokes about rape and woman-centered hatred? Really?)
What brings this up in me, like vomit, is seeing, time after time, girls and women disappear, only to be found dead in a creek, dead in a ditch, dead in the trash. Argument 2: Sometimes it's a woman perp. Rarely, but sometimes. Come on, though. That is such a low percent as to be a ridiculous argument. It ain't us, girls. It's them. And we get it from them.
So today's headlines include 2 dead little girls, and 1 missing young woman. That's just for today, Oct. 23, 2009, and only what we're hearing about on the national cable channels. There's 7 year-old Somer Thompson, who was walking home after school in Florida, and was found in a landfill. Elizabeth Olten, a 9 year-old girl, who went missing Wednesday on a walk home from a friend's house in St. Martins, Missouri. Her body was found in the woods. Morgan Harrington, a 20 year-old college student, went missing at a concert, and the case is now a criminal investigation. (We haven't heard yet about the sexual abuse the girls may have gone through.) That's just a few of the many girls and women that go missing or are found dead or are put in the hospital every every every minute of every day. All the time.
Finally, I come to the point. I'm calling for this: every male who touches, in anger, any female of any age must face the possibility (or probability, if I was in charge) of chemical castration, surgical castration, or penectomy (surgical removal of the penis). Period. How long would it take, do ya think, for them to take this problem seriously? If you hit a woman, if you rape a girl, if you harm an elderly woman, you would be charged with "violence against the female gender" call it a hate crime, full penalty under the law. Or prison for life, of you prefer. That's it. For any culture, any religion (Are you listening, Afghanistan?), any place on the planet earth. International law. How long? A year? A week? 20 minutes?
And while I'm at it, full reproductive rights for women. Everywhere. So that the killing of baby girls is punishable by death, or maybe we'll just abort the girl-killer's brain. And if the decisions for such things are made by women, always, I think it wouldn't take long for things to change. So here's my plan:
If we just
- take BACK our reproductive power, making having girls even more socially important than having boys;
- if we put pressure on the violators, from the courts and from society, as mothers and as wives and as judges;
- and if we put the pressure on the good males to use that innate power and desire to "hit, hurt, maim, rape and kill" on their fellow males, we will begin to see real equality in the world.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
What Do You Want: A World Prize, or a Thrown Shoe?
"Certainly from our standpoint, this [recognition] gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes."
Quote is from the State Department. Hillary Clinton's State Department. You remember Hillary? She was supposed to be Obama's arch enemy for all time. His nemesis. She sure plays it well, don't you think?
This is the Nobel Peace Prize, remember. PEACE Prize. That's P-E-A-C-E.
So, let's see who threw shoes: The Taliban sent a press release (!) saying, "We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama."
Yes, the Taliban sends press releases.
Who else?
The Iranian Foreign Minister called the Nobel decision "hasty." Hasty. Hmm.
Let's take a minute, and see a bit of what has he accomplished.
Quote is from the State Department. Hillary Clinton's State Department. You remember Hillary? She was supposed to be Obama's arch enemy for all time. His nemesis. She sure plays it well, don't you think?
This is the Nobel Peace Prize, remember. PEACE Prize. That's P-E-A-C-E.
So, let's see who threw shoes: The Taliban sent a press release (!) saying, "We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama."
Yes, the Taliban sends press releases.
Who else?
The Iranian Foreign Minister called the Nobel decision "hasty." Hasty. Hmm.
Let's take a minute, and see a bit of what has he accomplished.
- Last month he took the issues of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament to the United Nations, becoming the first US president to preside over a session of the Security Council.
- Negotiating with Russia in July, he has reduced the number of nuclear warheads over 100%. Yes, down by more that half. Look it up.
- "Obama's decision to cancel the deeply flawed antimissile systems in Eastern Europe is sound policy... He replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it... This is not appeasement; it is the new defense realism, the triumph of pragmatism over ideology." -by Joseph Cirincione of Foreign Policy Magazine
- Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been immediate and firm. He said, "American is not at war with Islam." He has single-handedly changed an 8 year trend in the wrong direction, thus changing America's image in not just the Islamic regions but the entire world. That's Kindergarten diplomacy. If you don't hate me, I'll play nice with you. Words, yes. With actions to back it up.
- Quoted from Obama speech: "In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We've worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe." And he backed up words with action: he signed two executive orders reversing some very damaging Bush policies, thus saying, essentially America is back to a global leadership role on climate change.
- He is closing Guantanemo Bay Detention Center. Can anything else be such a boon to repairing the reputation of the US in the point of view of the world? He said to the world, we don't torture. If you don't understand the importance of that, I can't explain it to you.
- He has been "tightening screws" in Iran, while simultaneously opening communication with them. Interesting juxtaposition. And it was pretty cool when he brought up the underground nuclear facility in public at the G-20 summit. And guess what? With the leaders of Britain and France by our side, China and Russia agreed with us: that "Iran must live up to it's obligations under international rules on nuclear activities." Iran has been served.
- He has restarted the Middle East peace talks. PEACE talks. Remember the past president? He waited until the end of his 2nd term and then it was a half-hearted attempt. Wow, what a surprise it didn't work. But then he cleared brush for a year, a full 365 days of his tenure. A man with that much brush to clear has to make some priorities, duddn't he?
Going back to the shoe-throwers: The Republican Party. The Party of No. NO, we don't want to slow or reverse any man-made damage we have done to the earth. NO, we don't want peace in the Middle East (or anywhere, actually). NO, we don't want to reduce nuclear warheads. NO, we don't want to be a better citizen of the world, and we certainly don't want to share our sand pile or our cookies. NO, we don't want the Olympics. Fer chrissakes! Who's against the Olympics?? The whole point is that's it's non-political. (Or attempts to be, if anything can be considered non-political.)
So, for the people who think he hasn't done anything, see the list (and I'm sure there are more things, but this list was made from scratch. I didn't pull it from anywhere. I watched the news over the last 8+ months and I sought out the stories I remembered, which admittedly could very well be only the hair on the giant.).
For those who just don't see it, I think it's a mighty neat trick to see a World Prize only in the context of the win/lose column of US politics. He hasn't brought about health care reform, so he's an international failure and doesn't deserve this award? That's telling in its shortsightedness.
"...Even though [the] Obama [Administration] is in the early stages, the committee felt his presidency warranted recognition," says Charles Kupchan, an expert in US foreign policy.
For those who just want to yell NO, I want to add a few words to your NO: NO one is listening to you. Thank god.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)