Healthcare and the Great Republican Listening Tour 2009

First, let it be said that healthcare costs are killing small business. There’s no way small business can manage to cover its employees and make a profit. It simply can’t be done, for the most part, and it’s difficult enough for any small business entrepreneur to cover him or herself and family. If the businessperson happens to be over the age of 50, then the problem is magnified about 10-fold. If the businessperson happens to have one of those ‘pre-existing conditions’ magnify it again.

Because it is unlikely that anyone who is self-employed will be able to qualify for any state-assistance program, that over-50 or pre-existing-conditioned business owner will likely go without health insurance at some point. His or her employees will also go without it, also, because individual policies are obscenely expensive. So we have an entire class of people—small business owners and their employees—that are in chronic jeopardy of being without insurance. They will get sick, however, and will add to the rolls of people who turn up at emergency rooms getting the most expensive type of healthcare that adds to the cost of health insurance for those who DO get insurance through their employers. It’s a circle that has as yet been unbroken by any ‘ideas’ offered by political parties.

Which brings us to the Republican Party and their efforts to provide—or rather not provide—basic healthcare for the American people. If you have observed them as carefully as I have over the years, you can’t help but notice that they are alarmingly cavalier about this issue. Their best effort has been to offer ‘health savings accounts’ which as essentially catastrophic plans with big deductibles that many STILL cannot afford, even though these policies with their big outlay of personal savings for the deductible has contributed mightily to bankruptcies among the middle class. They know this—and still they do nothing. They do worse than nothing—they obstruct those who ARE trying to provide health coverage for Americans. And rest assured, with the big lay-offs this country has seen, even more people are doing without healthcare. As many as 9 million more. That means that these people are also contributing to the high cost of premiums for everyone with their use of emergency room care. Let the circle be unbroken, by and by, Lord.
So now, we see Eric Cantor and the Great Republican Listening Tour 2009 spouting a lot of ‘focus-group-tested’ feel-good words to bamboozle us into thinking they are actually committed to doing something about our healthcare crisis—words like ‘cost savings,’ and ‘keeping your own doctors,’ and ‘our high quality of care’—words that are specifically designed to lead people around emotionally. I’m offended. The time for political manipulation has passed. It worked for Republicans for some time, but it left our country even worse off than before. And I’m holding them accountable for it.

Thoughts on Torture

Okay, I have to tackle this subject. Sure there’s been way too much said about it, but I will have to add my two cents to the cacophony. Why? Because we can’t let this one go. We can’t just ‘keep walking’ as Peggy Noonan suggests, and not look back, in the hopes of having the whole ugly episode ‘just go away.’ It won’t. If we don’t expose it to the disinfectant of sunshine, some other party somewhere on the planet will—and that will leave us looking even worse.

You can read the torture memos yourself at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html


It’s not pleasant reading. And it’s not pretty to think that our national leaders spent so much time parsing the details of what temperature of water was required to douse a prisoner with, for how long, before it actually became torture, nor whether having a physician and psychologist just standing there could assure there would be no lasting damage that would make it torture. The very fact that they studied the processes so closely and refined the details so exquisitely means they were dancing on the line—often wandering over that line, either by accident or design. It’s ugly to think about.

And there is Cheney. Now, I don’t have to add to the public dismay at the character of Cheney. All of that is obvious—it’s self-explanatory—from the lying on camera to push the war in Iraq—to the handwriting on the memo regarding Valerie Plame. It’s a dismal ‘legacy’ for Cheney to leave behind, and no doubt his progeny will have to bear the burden of it, because he surely doesn’t seem inclined to. That is his personal concern. It’s his personal conscience that he must live with, for now and throughout the ages. I wish him luck on it.

Let us just say that we can’t let this sleeping dog lie. We can’t pretend it didn’t happen. We can’t even pretend it wasn’t as bad as it clearly turned out to be. America is better than that. America is stronger than that. We can admit we were led astray. We can admit we were paralyzed with fear into inaction. We can even admit that we so wished it wasn’t true. All that is very human. What is inhuman—and inhumane—is that we knew, and did nothing about it once we knew.
That is beneath us. And I don’t believe Americans will tolerate it.

The Joy of Lint

For those who don’t know, Lintballing is the careful accumulation and nurturing of that stuff that comes out of your drier filter, that stuff that can make your life a living hell if not attended to, and which can be an element of endless creativity if you utilize it properly. Evidently, humans have made friends with dryer ‘fluff’ and have come to view its accumulation as art, as science, and as culture. Yes, this phenomenon has come to the fore at the very time when our lives are most insecure--when our jobs most threatened, our finances most pilfered, and our futures most uncertain. Lint has entered to save the day.

It started, as many things do, with a person in a chatroom.

A woman whose name will remain unblogged mentioned that she saved—that is to say, collected—the fluff from her dryer. She found that this dryer ‘fluff’ formed beautiful, intricate patterns when it was gathered together into artfully manipulated ‘balls’ that were both pleasing and satisfying. In what most of us would ordinarily overlook and discard, she had found beauty and Art.

When I first heard of it, it struck me so deeply that I wanted to participate in this ‘lintball phenomenon.’ I began collecting this fibrous output from my dryer filter, and it did, in fact, have wonderful bits of color that called to mind not only the clothing and material it came from, but the people and events that surrounded that clothing. And collecting this lint was a sensory experience as well. Smelling fresh from the fabric softener, and soft from the fluffing of the dryer, it was the kind of thing that made you put your nose right into it and savor the moment. But I soon found that collecting lint demanded a focus and dedication that I did not possess--well, not for lint, anyway. Houseguests came and treated the lint like so much garbage. And this caused a deep resentment for my guests that I otherwise would not have felt. They didn’t understand me AT ALL—they didn’t even KNOW me--and they sure didn’t respect my property. The nerve of these people.

It was after one of these occurrences when my carefully crafted lintball was thrown into the trash, that I began to see that my attachment to this collection of lint was perhaps not healthy. That is the hazard of lintballing—it is addictive and absorbing. So I tossed the lintball and stopped lintballing altogether. I’m not saying I don’t still have the craving, because the fact is, I still appreciate and caress the little woven sheets that come off my dryer filter (“Oh, that’s a nice one!” and “Look, there’s Mom’s sweater!”). I just don’t attach to the emotion anymore. I let it go. But I still retain an interest in lint in general, and communicate often with the woman who started the phenomenon, so that I can vicariously enjoy her collection.

To update:

Her lintball has grown to unmanageable proportion and she has decided to burn it, ritually, on a day and time meaningful to her. I find this not only fitting, but a decision that must be supported. Why, I don’t know. Lint is symbolic of something else, it seems. All that we throw away—all that we consume without thinking—all that we leave behind.

She decided on the June 21st, the beginning of summer. It was only then that she told me a story of a demanding, abusive husband, who pulled out the lint from the dryer and showed it to his wife with the words, “There—see how you waste our clothing?”

I knew that the woman who related this story to me had no tolerance for abusive men in any way, nor even women who allowed themselves to be abused. Yet, the story stuck in her mind. And it sticks in mine.

At this, I suggested that some Tori Amos music might be a suitable accompaniment for the lintball-burning ceremony. She agreed. We might even post the burning event on youtube. A ‘Burning Lintball,’ rather like the Burning Man event in Nevada—only with particular meaning for women. Announcements will be forthcoming.

This blog entry has gone on for too long, and I have no idea why. As I said, lint is symbolic of something else. A metaphor.
Consider it yourself, and see what it means to you.

The Rape of the Afghan Women

I don’t like to say stuff like ‘I told you so,’ but I told you so. We are now in cahoots with an Afghan government that is legalizing the rape of Afghani wives by their husbands, pretty much whenever they want. I don’t know what tenet of Sharia law this follows, nor in what passage in the Quran it is mentioned, but I’m pretty sure this just your garden-variety marginalization of women that that world has always been seen, throughout the history of mankind, especially in Muslim countries (usually on religious grounds). This means that not only are Americans sending their money to support an Afghan government that betrays women at the drop of a hat, we are also sending our soldiers to die for it. This is not cool, man. This is NOT okay.

I’m mad. And I’m mad not only in that ordinary ‘someone is pissing me off’ way, I’m mad in a political way, historical way. I’m mad for everything that has been done to women for someone else’s advantage, throughout time. I’m mad for every time anyone has ever said or thought, “It’s okay now—women have their rights and should pipe down.” I’m mad in a profound, visceral, all-encompassing way—because I do not intend to be complicit in ‘trading away’ the rights of women for certain alleged successes. That is not a ‘success.’ And it has been done habitually in the history of the world, and I won’t have a part in it.

We anticipate this happening in Iraq, too. The ascendancy of Sharia law will make it not only harder for women there to keep their rights, but for religious minorities, too. And we have blundered into it, losing 4270 of our soldiers to the ‘liberation of Iraq.’ And countless of innocent Iraqi lives, as well. Who—exactly—will be ‘liberated’? What are we to tell the families of those soldiers who were lost? That ‘they didn’t die in vain’? That their service was wholly ‘honorable’? How can we sustain that lie when a previously secular Iraq will now be demanding veils on women, and keeping them in their homes unless they have men to accompany them? What is ‘honorable’ about that? And you can’t say ‘well, we didn’t MEAN for that to happen’ when it was totally foreseeable, given the religious situation there.

So what do we have in these places that we have bumbled into with some testosterone-loaded plan to vanquish the ‘enemy’ that A) wasn’t in Iraq to begin with, and B) might have been in Afghanistan, but is now in Pakistan, and where we have in fact, helped to continue the oppression of women. We have a mess—that’s what we have. An unjustifiable, unholy, unfair, and undemocratic mess.

I do not hear Republicans taking responsibility for that mess. I do not hear this party that is so anxious for others to be ‘accountable’ for their actions actually being accountable for what they themselves have lockstepped in support of for the past 8 years. In fact, I hear a party that is STILL pushing the swaggering, macho ‘strong (if thoughtless) defense’ mentality that bungled us into these various messes. Well, I am not going to let them carry on as if nothing has happened. What happens to the women of the world may not be very important to them, but it is important to ME. And I will out them at every opportunity.

As is spoken from those who endured a previous hideous outrage of history: “Never again.”

Whenever we deal with countries whose entire cultural and historical pattern includes the oppression of women, we must tread carefully, so as not to entrench these grotesque patterns even further.
That is the very least a ‘democratic’ nation can do.

Intimacy & Boundaries

A situation happened recently that caused me to think about the inherent tension between the psychological need for intimacy, and the psychological need for boundaries. It's a subject close to my heart because I'm a big believer in boundaries. Ask anyone who knows me, they'll tell you I have strong boundaries (some might say 'walls'), and as for intimacy--well--I love having people around that I know well and who know me and accept me as I am.



But it seems to me there are a lot of people who are very reckless with boundaries--always asking very pointed questions about one's personal life, or giving advice on subjects so intimate they have no right treading there. Or else, they're telling you things that are way, way too much information to know about them. Or using your things in a 'what's yours is mine' sort of way. We all know the type, people who are in a big rush to be familiar when you don't know them very well. I really hate that--I hate being in the position of having to find a way to back off--and I hate feeling guilty about doing so.


Maybe it's me.

If you mention the idea of 'boundaries' these people will look at you like they've never heard of the concept before. Especially people in large families, they are so used to having people in their bubble, in their face, about every little thing that the idea of drawing boundaries seems cold and unfriendly, even hostile. Some families operate on the idea that familiarity gives them the right to intrude in almost any area of your life, and when faced with the outside world where boundaries are the order of the day, they find themselves feeling shut out and resentful, when they should feel respectful and appreciative at being informed of the limits of ongoing relationships.

I was one of those kids in kindergarten who had 'shares well with others' written on my report cards constantly. But at home, a different standard applies. My home is my castle, my fortress, my sanctuary. I am jealous of everything in it, its peace, its quiet, and its order, and I don't like people making themselves too much at home there. And the closer you get to my bedroom--the inner sanctum--the more those rules apply.

Yes, I realize there is a metaphor there. You can draw your own conclusions.

But I also believe that my fondness for drawing boundaries makes for easier, long-term relationships. You always know how far you can go, with me, and if you go further, rest assured you will be told so. Conversely, I am always on guard against transgressing anyone else's boundaries, and if I step across, you can be sure that I will have re-assessed the situation shortly, and won't do it again. This is how I am. I make no apologies for it.

But all this watching and reinforcing of boundaries takes a lot of energy, and I often wish I didn't have to do it. However, the way of the world is such that boundaries must guarded--fortresses must be protected.

On the other hand, I might just be overthinking the whole thing.

MySpace, Facebook, & Twitter--Social Networking for What Purpose?

I have yet to discover what good comes of social networking sites. So far, these sites have been time-suckers of major proportion to me. Maybe it’s a generational thing, and young people need a different technology than the one older people have managed to figure out, so that they can feel younger, hipper and more cutting edge. I don’t know.

I do know they use these sites to tell about themselves, express themselves, post outlandish pictures of themselves as if to prove that yes, they DO in fact exist and are having a wonderful time at it, too, thank you very much. Personally, I don’t want that much information about myself floating around the internet. I’m certain that my face will end up on a fabricated body on some porn site. Or I will earn myself a deranged stalker who will for some reason take a dislike to my dog and my cat, and I’ll find the poor creatures trussed up and baked on a platter on my back porch. Seriously, I worry about these things. The whole ‘opening oneself up’ is clearly inadvisable in these times. Just read the news.

Then, there’s the whole political whacko issue you have to worry about. I intend to keep speaking my mind on various venues, and you don’t know what kind of religious and/or political retribution you might incur from some zealot. That’s not paranoia—it’s realistic care, if you know something about those people.

The whole idea of a million degrees of online separation seems bizarre, too. I am connected with people everyone else knows, and everyone they know. The sheer statistics of the occurrence of psychosis in any given society makes this a bad idea at its core. What are we thinking?

And yet, if you have anything to sell, anything to promote, it’s advised that you get on Facebook or MySpace. The risks of rubbing shoulders (no matter how remotely) with unwashed masses have always come in second to the prospect of making money. So I’m out there. In a limited way. Expecting chaos the whole time.

That’s the lure of technology, isn’t it? You just can’t NOT do it when you know it’s out there. It’s the thing that keeps Microsoft pumping out operating platforms that don’t particularly work. It’s the thing that keeps McCain hiring staffers to twitter for him (and yes, we do know McCain and others do NOT send tweets themselves—that strains credulity a little too much). It’s the thing that makes us spend hours hunched over a keyboard trying to download programs, endlessly writing profiles, and keeping secret logbooks of our online user names and passwords.

What hath God wrought? To coin a phrase.

The best that can be expressed about these new ways of interacting was said by a family member, when I asked her what these social networking sites were for. She answered, “I think they’re just another way to send email.”

That, at least, I can grasp.

If anyone out there has found a good use for social networking sites beyond that, please let me know. Until then, it’s out there, and I use it.
I have no choice.

What Is This Thing Called 'Conservative'?

Okay, it has come to my attention that people are throwing the word ‘conservative’ around with abandon lately. I hate when people start throwing words around with abandon, without any respect to what the word means at its heart, in its beginnings, and without any care as to what other people mean when they apply it in actual use. It’s too easy to be dishonest with words—they are often slippery things—and I respect the power of words so much it really rubs me the wrong way when the use of words is used to drive people into misconceptions about themselves.

We are told often that most Americans consider themselves ‘conservative.’ Now, what are we to presume that means? That they wholeheartedly subscribe to the Conservative Agenda as currently stated by the far-right-driven Republican Party? I think not. ‘Conservative’ has a more subtle meaning in the minds of the bulk of the American public. It means ‘not going overboard.’ It means ‘spending money where it counts for the good of ALL citizens.’ It means ‘thinking carefully before taking action.’ It means ‘deeply considering facts before applying policy.’ It does NOT mean ‘blindly following a particular set of ideological points.’ Nor does it mean ‘promoting religious principles through legislation.’ Nor does it mean, ‘ignoring the poor of our country as if they are inherently unworthy.’

If anyone out there has a different idea of what MOST Americans think they are saying when they state they are ‘conservative,’ I’d really like to hear it. I get the feeling Republicans think that this is the handle they have on the public, this ‘conservative’ thing. They think it automatically means THEIR brand of ‘conservatism.’ And they carry on as if they can drive the public into being on their side by simply wielding the word ‘conservative,’ as if that alone can create the voting fervor needed to push their policies through. And in fact, that has worked to some extent in the past decade. That ‘driving the public’ put George Bush into office, and gave him a Republican congress, and the okay to appoint ideological judges to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this Republican brand of ‘conservatism’ has served the American public so badly that voters are wondering, themselves, what they mean by being ‘conservative.’

So Republicans just change the position of the goalposts. “Oh, it’s not THAT kind of conservative that we meant—that was just a mistake—a fluke of personnel—we meant this OTHER kind of conservative. The kind you really like—you know—like Reagan, for instance—he was nice—you liked him, right? Yeah, we meant to be THAT kind of conservative.”

I hear a manipulation in that rhetoric. And that suspicion of manipulation is upheld by Republicans’ complete unwillingness to change any of the points in their agenda. That tells me they’re using the classic ‘bait and switch’ tactic. Promise them one thing—give them another.

Or we hear the even worse: “We must be MORE conservative. We should conservative the heck out of everything, go full-out, whole-hog conservative. THAT’S what we meant to do. THAT will solve all our problems!”

That, too is a manipulation. It implies that their policies would work better if only they were done right. And of course, you must keep voting them into office to try to get it right. I don’t think so. The very last thing Americans want is doing something to an extreme, and the second to the last thing they want is trusting Republicans again.

Until Republicans learn to play fair with the public, the public will continue to hold them in contempt and with suspicion. The ball is entirely in their court. I am not terribly hopeful about it at the moment.

I believe America is stronger with two viable parties in its political debate. But the parties have to play fair—keep it real—and not use duplicitous methods to get into office and then run roughshod over the needs of the people. This is the first duty of government—to serve the public—without that, its purpose becomes diffuse and, more often than not, corrupt.

Let’s watch and see what Republicans do. It could be they will ‘evolve’ though they don’t believe in evolution. Maybe that evolution will occur in spite of their belief—as it does in the natural world. We’ll just have to see. In the meantime, their rhetoric is just so much background noise behind a president and a populace trying to solve real problems in the real world.