Here I am having completed a tedious but necessary task - a bit more onerous than cleaning your teeth, yet more satisfying than washing the dog - when I take a break to check out my tabled email. So I open up an apparently innocuous update on various public good foundations and organizations and what do I see:
"The National
Geographic Society has announced an expanded partnership with 21st
Century Fox that includes the sale of National Geographic
magazine and other media properties to a for-profit entity."
[Philanthropy News Digest.support-b941fycbfbtsg6aupky9rbys5bbk97@e.foundationcenter.org Copyright © 1995-2015, the
Foundation Center. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or
distribute this document in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes
without fee is hereby granted provided that this notice and appropriate
credit to the Foundation Center is included in all copies.]
I include the citation in the body of this blog so you can check it out for yourself - because I'm guessing you can't believe it, either.
They go on to say it's just the magazine and other publications/media that's being sold for $725 million to the Fox-in-the-philanthropic-fowl-sanctuary, not the philanthropic society. Just our favorite magazine.
That's all.
That's enough.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Co-operation
The
goal of the co-operative economic model is to have both parties to
a financial exchange benefit equally. Capitalists will tell you that
is their goal as well, but they are being less than forthcoming. In
practice, one side of the capitalist exchange benefits and the other
gains something perceived to be vital by giving up something much, somewhat, or slightly less vital. “Vital” here being
defined as something needed for perceived
well-being – if only for the moment.
By definition, the exchange is unequal. Imagine my surprise –
having arrived at that conclusion - when I figured out that
Capitalism always benefits the rich to the detriment of the poor.
After
I got over the shock, I became a co-operator.
The
co-operative model works. Not because it appeals to our sense of
justice or our concern for the good of the community. We mostly don't
have any of that when it comes to money. It works for two reasons:
* A
few of us are idiot enough to be proponents of social justice and to
see long-term benefit to ourselves in it;
*
The rest of us of us have, from earliest childhood, a solid sense of
“No fair!” that covers the loss of any privilege deemed
beneficial.
Some
of us have parents who point out that “No fair!” should cover all
parties and that we must share in this fairness deal. Some have
parents who think that's a load of crap and it's every man for
himself (and sometimes he helps the women, too). The latter group
may seem to dominate, but maybe not. Popularity of the various
interpretations of “No fair!” seems to vacillate over the
decades. The point is, it's always defined somehow.
When
things get tough, which they always do, the (initially few)
proponents of social justice are right there waiting to tell the rest
of us how co-operation is the path to fairness. And, as it turns out, if things
are really tough (which they always are, eventually) helping each
other succeed financially is reasonably fair for the 99 percent. And when things, ultimately, get worse than that, everyone in the 99% pretty much agrees that the 1% can go attempt to procreate without benefit of partner.
The
only real question (in my mind, because I can only hold one question
in mind at a time) is how far this current economic disaster of
Capitalism will continue to destroy large mammals before the ship rights
itself and will it be too late for most large mammals?
I
wouldn't care about this question - my mind is cluttered enough already - if it weren't for the fact that my
progeny and all my offspring-by-marriage are, themselves, large mammals.
Hopefully,
that isn't a problem for you.
Friday, September 11, 2015
About Whom Do We Care?
OK. Yeah, nobody uses that "proper" form of avoiding the prepositions you shouldn't end a sentence with. But it's nice to reminisce. That's what you do as you get older. The "you" in this case being me. Who knows what you two do?
So I've been reminiscing about the olden days when people were nicer, kinder.
Only I can't recall exactly when that was.
Was it in ancient China when the dynasties had everything organized and torture was a fine art that... OK, maybe not ancient China.
Was it in the Middle Ages when Christianity was spreading throughout the known world (that is to say the world known to the Romans)? Not if you read your Ivanhoe it wasn't.
Was it in the great days of the spread of Islam. Well, if you were male and on the winning side, maybe. Or lucky enough to be one of the widows of conquered rulers that Mohammed married. But anyone else, not so much.
Was it more recently, in the United States in the 1950's, like my old fogie friends on Facebook seem to think? Back when lynching African Americans was a popular white Christian activity, various children were treated obscenely and not heard, and no woman in her right mind admitted to having been raped. Well, I guess not for everyone, at any rate.
So maybe this is it; this is the nicer, kinder time.
But I'm not so sure we don't have some room for improvement. I'm not sure we all agree about whom we should care about. To coin a phrase.
Now, at this point, all of you politically correct folks who are offended when humor is used to mock the apparent excesses of some identifiable-with-one-word group the members of which are currently living, please stop reading and get to some serious and politically correct endeavor. The following is not guaranteed to conform to anyone's notion of inoffensive observations.
I don't call myself a Christian because too many people have given it a bad name.
My Christian heritage is also the proud heritage of some very devout people who would force a 14-year-old to have her baby after she was raped by Uncle Willie but not lift a finger to help her and said baby when her parents kick her out because they don't believe her that it was Uncle Willie. It seems unfair to me that the devout Christians get the warm glow and the 14-year-old gets the blame when her kid doesn't turn out so well.
My Christian heritage is also the proud heritage of people in group A who think they have the right to make rules for the people in group B about whom they can love, or whom they can get away with loving not-so-consentually, or whom they should hate unreservedly, or whom they should incarcerate, or whom they should have a legal right to shoot, and so on.
And of people in group C (for Capitalist) who have rules about whom they can cheat legally so that they can screw all the other good Christians in town, especially the non-white ones, as long as they do it financially, and be pillars of the community because of it. I won't go into what kind of pillar that would be.
So my question is, about whom do we care? How many whoms does it take to give us the good name we humans expect we should have? Whom is in charge of that?
So I've been reminiscing about the olden days when people were nicer, kinder.
Only I can't recall exactly when that was.
Was it in ancient China when the dynasties had everything organized and torture was a fine art that... OK, maybe not ancient China.
Was it in the Middle Ages when Christianity was spreading throughout the known world (that is to say the world known to the Romans)? Not if you read your Ivanhoe it wasn't.
Was it in the great days of the spread of Islam. Well, if you were male and on the winning side, maybe. Or lucky enough to be one of the widows of conquered rulers that Mohammed married. But anyone else, not so much.
Was it more recently, in the United States in the 1950's, like my old fogie friends on Facebook seem to think? Back when lynching African Americans was a popular white Christian activity, various children were treated obscenely and not heard, and no woman in her right mind admitted to having been raped. Well, I guess not for everyone, at any rate.
So maybe this is it; this is the nicer, kinder time.
But I'm not so sure we don't have some room for improvement. I'm not sure we all agree about whom we should care about. To coin a phrase.
Now, at this point, all of you politically correct folks who are offended when humor is used to mock the apparent excesses of some identifiable-with-one-word group the members of which are currently living, please stop reading and get to some serious and politically correct endeavor. The following is not guaranteed to conform to anyone's notion of inoffensive observations.
I don't call myself a Christian because too many people have given it a bad name.
My Christian heritage is also the proud heritage of some very devout people who would force a 14-year-old to have her baby after she was raped by Uncle Willie but not lift a finger to help her and said baby when her parents kick her out because they don't believe her that it was Uncle Willie. It seems unfair to me that the devout Christians get the warm glow and the 14-year-old gets the blame when her kid doesn't turn out so well.
My Christian heritage is also the proud heritage of people in group A who think they have the right to make rules for the people in group B about whom they can love, or whom they can get away with loving not-so-consentually, or whom they should hate unreservedly, or whom they should incarcerate, or whom they should have a legal right to shoot, and so on.
And of people in group C (for Capitalist) who have rules about whom they can cheat legally so that they can screw all the other good Christians in town, especially the non-white ones, as long as they do it financially, and be pillars of the community because of it. I won't go into what kind of pillar that would be.
So my question is, about whom do we care? How many whoms does it take to give us the good name we humans expect we should have? Whom is in charge of that?
Sunday, March 08, 2015
The Benefits of Aging
Well, first off, if you don't believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, you don't die.
And secondly, if you do believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, you don't have to really face the consequences of your actions. At least not just yet.
Thirdly, you may not be 62 any more (see photo above), but you don't look a day over 70 (see photo to the left). So far.
And, of course, there's the fact that you develop some compassion for all the things older human beings do that used to really irritate you - now that you're doing them yourself. For example:
** If you used to be irritated by that little old lady at the checkout counter who took several years to put stuff back into her purse, you have compassion for her now that she is you.
** If you used to interrupt people with questions, thinking that any fool could answer a question and then continue with his or her train of thought, you now have compassion for the other fools who have as much trouble as you do catching a train, any train. Or retaining a thought, any thought.
** If you used to get angry about the idiots in Congress who think they have a right to stay in office until the cows come home... Well, you still do. Some things don't change.
It goes without saying that none of the above excuses the little old person driving as though everyone had all day and there was no one else on the road other than himself or herself.
Unless, of course, the little old person is you. Or me.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Welcoming the New Year Chez Sherry – 2014 in Review and Predictions for 2015
I know, I know, I'm later than usual this year. But you've got to remember: I'm older than usual. You've got to for the obvious reason. I can't. Remember. Much of anything.
As 2014 comes (came) to a close and we (belatedly) recall with nostalgia days gone by (blocking out all the unfortunate ones, of course) and think back on the past year:
** President Obama still couldn't do anything right, according to pundits at Fox News, not even when he did what they praised in others.
** Facing reports of the hottest year in recorded history with – very possibly – the most severe weather/geothermal conditions ever, the Koch brothers turned around and faced the other way.
** Those with extremist tendencies reminded us forcefully that joking about religion really isn't funny.
** On the other hand, Pope Francis continued to put taking religion seriously in a really hopeful light – so much so that Facebook enthusiasts bought all the over-the-top stuff attributed to him (me included until I checked).
** The economy in the US of A improved because of President Obama's economic policies that everyone knew were wrong. Meanwhile, the European outlook continued to be bleak because of the general failure of the austerity programs that everyone knew were right.
** With the largest percentage ever of its citizens in prison and more than half of its pregnant women being certifiably hungry (as certified by WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), those who praised the US of A as the land of freedom and opportunity came up against that reality we heard again last year, "It used to be."
And now, predictions for the New Year:
!! Joblessness will diminish and Republicans will, for once, neglect to blame President Obama.
!! Trickly-down economics (by any other name) will continue its historic lack of success while its supporters will remain steadfast in their inability to absorb facts.
!! The European Union will continue to respond appropriately to those who reject austerity as being inhuman and unworkable: Belt tightening is the Answer. (We might agree if we were clear about the Question.) (But probably not.)
!! President Obama will (wait for it, you'll have to) be recognized as one of our greatest presidents, restoring more international good will, introducing more reforms, and solving more economic and social problems than any president in recent memory. (And, face it, all we citizens of the US of A have is recent memory.)
!! The Republican-dominated House of Representatives will engage in at least one more ritual-cleansing vote against the Affordable Care Act and may well do other things to avoid being useful.
!! Global climate change will be generally accepted as a viable theory of why we have global climate change. Details about who's at fault will remain. It ain't us, of course.
!! Nation-wide hunger will join the ranks of world-wide hunger while everyone tries to ignore the growing evidence that natural and organic foods might actually be a more viable solution than manufactured "food" products. Using the term "viable" (loosely, of course) to mean "giving life" or some such.
!! The use of "air quotes" will increase, as will the use of "quotes" in general, but when using "spoken quotes," everyone will still forget to say, "close quote."
Be well and prosper. And remember to (quote) write when you get work (close quote).
Speaking of being well:
:( More children will die or be permanently impaired from vaccine-preventable diseases in the US of A this year than since the "every child by 2" campaign to vaccinate children against deadly childhood diseases began declaring its success.
And that's tragic.
As 2014 comes (came) to a close and we (belatedly) recall with nostalgia days gone by (blocking out all the unfortunate ones, of course) and think back on the past year:
** President Obama still couldn't do anything right, according to pundits at Fox News, not even when he did what they praised in others.
** Facing reports of the hottest year in recorded history with – very possibly – the most severe weather/geothermal conditions ever, the Koch brothers turned around and faced the other way.
** Those with extremist tendencies reminded us forcefully that joking about religion really isn't funny.
** On the other hand, Pope Francis continued to put taking religion seriously in a really hopeful light – so much so that Facebook enthusiasts bought all the over-the-top stuff attributed to him (me included until I checked).
** The economy in the US of A improved because of President Obama's economic policies that everyone knew were wrong. Meanwhile, the European outlook continued to be bleak because of the general failure of the austerity programs that everyone knew were right.
** With the largest percentage ever of its citizens in prison and more than half of its pregnant women being certifiably hungry (as certified by WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), those who praised the US of A as the land of freedom and opportunity came up against that reality we heard again last year, "It used to be."
And now, predictions for the New Year:
!! Joblessness will diminish and Republicans will, for once, neglect to blame President Obama.
!! Trickly-down economics (by any other name) will continue its historic lack of success while its supporters will remain steadfast in their inability to absorb facts.
!! The European Union will continue to respond appropriately to those who reject austerity as being inhuman and unworkable: Belt tightening is the Answer. (We might agree if we were clear about the Question.) (But probably not.)
!! President Obama will (wait for it, you'll have to) be recognized as one of our greatest presidents, restoring more international good will, introducing more reforms, and solving more economic and social problems than any president in recent memory. (And, face it, all we citizens of the US of A have is recent memory.)
!! The Republican-dominated House of Representatives will engage in at least one more ritual-cleansing vote against the Affordable Care Act and may well do other things to avoid being useful.
!! Global climate change will be generally accepted as a viable theory of why we have global climate change. Details about who's at fault will remain. It ain't us, of course.
!! Nation-wide hunger will join the ranks of world-wide hunger while everyone tries to ignore the growing evidence that natural and organic foods might actually be a more viable solution than manufactured "food" products. Using the term "viable" (loosely, of course) to mean "giving life" or some such.
!! The use of "air quotes" will increase, as will the use of "quotes" in general, but when using "spoken quotes," everyone will still forget to say, "close quote."
Be well and prosper. And remember to (quote) write when you get work (close quote).
Speaking of being well:
:( More children will die or be permanently impaired from vaccine-preventable diseases in the US of A this year than since the "every child by 2" campaign to vaccinate children against deadly childhood diseases began declaring its success.
And that's tragic.
Sunday, November 09, 2014
After the Ball is Over
Well, the elections are over and I've had a good depression (and several other oxymorons). So I'm taking a break from important personal business to share a thought (no sense holding onto it until it spoils).
So here's the thing, my fellow Americans: we've taken the wrong approach to this political message business. Same as you, most likely, I voted for people who took positions I agreed with and sponsored legislation I liked. And if they said or voted for things I didn't like, I remembered them prattling on about public service and representing all constituents. So I kept supporting them as long as I liked most of what they said and did.
How last century was that?!!
What we should have been doing all along, besides paying attention only to those who share our opinions, is thinking up ways to contradict, befuddle, mystify, and silence people who don't share our opinions. Like the majority of our elected officials and news commentators have been doing.
So here's the new me (and you, I hope, when you add your own provisions and slogans):
** Women and gays have been getting all our attention when it comes to personal choices. This is sexist and genderist. Men should insist on equal,or even better, treatment:
!! Unmarried men must refrain from any activity that could lead to the loss of viable reproductive material.
** Persons of color and women have been getting most of the attention when it comes to protecting our right to vote. White male adults should insist on better-than-equal treatment:
!! White men must prove their eligibility to vote by reciting the first four sentences of the Declaration of Independence and the entire Preamble to the Constitution before casting their ballots. If they want to use mail-in voting, they must re-register and complete their eligibility requirements at least 12 weeks, but no more than 40 weeks, before each election.
And here are a few slogans we've been using indiscriminantly, that I've modified a bit:
** Hatred is a family value.
** Better dead than well read.
** No taxation. (adding more words is unnecessary and probably anti-American)
** You can fool most of the people most of the time, and that's how you win elections.
So here's the thing, my fellow Americans: we've taken the wrong approach to this political message business. Same as you, most likely, I voted for people who took positions I agreed with and sponsored legislation I liked. And if they said or voted for things I didn't like, I remembered them prattling on about public service and representing all constituents. So I kept supporting them as long as I liked most of what they said and did.
How last century was that?!!
What we should have been doing all along, besides paying attention only to those who share our opinions, is thinking up ways to contradict, befuddle, mystify, and silence people who don't share our opinions. Like the majority of our elected officials and news commentators have been doing.
So here's the new me (and you, I hope, when you add your own provisions and slogans):
** Women and gays have been getting all our attention when it comes to personal choices. This is sexist and genderist. Men should insist on equal,or even better, treatment:
!! Unmarried men must refrain from any activity that could lead to the loss of viable reproductive material.
** Persons of color and women have been getting most of the attention when it comes to protecting our right to vote. White male adults should insist on better-than-equal treatment:
!! White men must prove their eligibility to vote by reciting the first four sentences of the Declaration of Independence and the entire Preamble to the Constitution before casting their ballots. If they want to use mail-in voting, they must re-register and complete their eligibility requirements at least 12 weeks, but no more than 40 weeks, before each election.
And here are a few slogans we've been using indiscriminantly, that I've modified a bit:
** Hatred is a family value.
** Better dead than well read.
** No taxation. (adding more words is unnecessary and probably anti-American)
** You can fool most of the people most of the time, and that's how you win elections.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Vote, Please
...because if you are a citizen of the United States of America and any of these:
### young
### female
### non-white or not non-Hispanic (also known as non-non-Hispanic)
...because if you prefer not the be judged by:
*** your sexual orientation
*** your religion or lack thereof
*** your opinions about what health decisions should be available to whom
*** the color of your shoes
*** whether you wear hats for no particular, or some specific, reason
*** the size, or lack thereof, of your book collection
*** your views, if any, on personal hygiene
...because if you are disillusioned by:
!!! the Democratic party
!!! the Republican party
!!! the President
!!! the news media
!!! rich White men
!!! life in these United States for any non-rich-White-man
...because the ONLY way you can do anything about it is to (A) hold office somewhere in the US of A or (B) vote. I voted and, while it wasn't great, it felt better than holding office.
Vote. Please. It's your right, your privilege, and your JOB as a citizen of this forever-trying-to-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-principles-and-generally-not-doing-so-well-at-it nation. And your nation needs you.
### young
### female
### non-white or not non-Hispanic (also known as non-non-Hispanic)
...because if you prefer not the be judged by:
*** your sexual orientation
*** your religion or lack thereof
*** your opinions about what health decisions should be available to whom
*** the color of your shoes
*** whether you wear hats for no particular, or some specific, reason
*** the size, or lack thereof, of your book collection
*** your views, if any, on personal hygiene
...because if you are disillusioned by:
!!! the Democratic party
!!! the Republican party
!!! the President
!!! the news media
!!! rich White men
!!! life in these United States for any non-rich-White-man
...because the ONLY way you can do anything about it is to (A) hold office somewhere in the US of A or (B) vote. I voted and, while it wasn't great, it felt better than holding office.
Vote. Please. It's your right, your privilege, and your JOB as a citizen of this forever-trying-to-live-up-to-its-ideals-and-principles-and-generally-not-doing-so-well-at-it nation. And your nation needs you.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Random Questions for Thursday
Have you ever had an epiphany? No, me neither. I've thought about it, but I'm not sure these things can be planned. We've all have had ideas that seemed brilliant to us at the time. But when I came down, sobered up, stopped laughing, and/or woke up most of them didn't pan out.
But concern over epiphanies is just one of the questions I have about life in particular. Here are a few of the others:
When we worry about the role models that might be harmful to our children, which should bother us the most:
> purveyors of second-hand e-smoke,
> cannibalistic breakfast cereal,
> or the United States Congress inaction?
Has everyone forgotten about how to use their turn indicators, or are they just saving up for really important turns?
What are the mystical generation-naming conventions that gave us "the baby-boomers" and "gen-x" and "the High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup Generation" (or some such), and how can we avoid them?
When other people living in the US of A register on the "do not call" list, do they all start getting several calls every day that start out, "Hello Seniors..."?
And cycling back to drivers who drive you insane, do the people who drive with their arms out the windows - sometimes straight out, sometimes bent up from the elbow, sometimes hanging down by the car door - realize some of us are old enough to think all that might mean something about their immediate motoring plans and become even more confused than we were already?
Did my college friend Bobby tell very many other people about his favorite saying, "Sure happy it's Thursday" and is that why more an more people are using the acronym today?
I clearly don't have the answers, but maybe something I wrote will lead some of you to an epiphany. Or can epiphanies be a group activity?
But concern over epiphanies is just one of the questions I have about life in particular. Here are a few of the others:
When we worry about the role models that might be harmful to our children, which should bother us the most:
> purveyors of second-hand e-smoke,
> cannibalistic breakfast cereal,
> or the United States Congress inaction?
Has everyone forgotten about how to use their turn indicators, or are they just saving up for really important turns?
What are the mystical generation-naming conventions that gave us "the baby-boomers" and "gen-x" and "the High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup Generation" (or some such), and how can we avoid them?
When other people living in the US of A register on the "do not call" list, do they all start getting several calls every day that start out, "Hello Seniors..."?
And cycling back to drivers who drive you insane, do the people who drive with their arms out the windows - sometimes straight out, sometimes bent up from the elbow, sometimes hanging down by the car door - realize some of us are old enough to think all that might mean something about their immediate motoring plans and become even more confused than we were already?
Did my college friend Bobby tell very many other people about his favorite saying, "Sure happy it's Thursday" and is that why more an more people are using the acronym today?
I clearly don't have the answers, but maybe something I wrote will lead some of you to an epiphany. Or can epiphanies be a group activity?
Monday, July 21, 2014
Sorry I Didn't Write
Sorry I've been so out of touch. I've been having some health difficulties that, I want to say up front, had nothing to do with Obamacare (formerly, if infrequently, known as the Affordable Care Act).
Indeed, after 12 surgeries in less than 4 years, including 7 with general anesthetic and not insignificant recovery periods - the last two of which were further complicated by my previous extreme adverse reaction to ultram, codiene, any codiene derivative, and most other pain medications (a reaction that, in the last instance, persisted for more than 12 hours, even though I'd taken Zofran - also known as the pot pill – and included, but was not limited to, loss of all stomach contents, the incipient high, and the ability to keep down anything, even water) - and after the resulting-not-unexpected difficulty with alleviating post-operative pain effectively, or sleeping much, I asked the Diety,
"Why me?"
There was no great booming voice from the sky.
I did hear a gentle voice of indeterminate gender saying, "Your plea is very important to us. However, all of our representatives are currently busy with other supplicants. Please hold and be assured that we will deal with each supplicant in the order that the plea was received."
After that, I heard the most beautiful choral music, almost like Tallis and Bach had gotten together on it.
After several days, I lost the connection.
I thought of trying back, but I've lost my place in the queue, so…
Anyway, how have you been?
Indeed, after 12 surgeries in less than 4 years, including 7 with general anesthetic and not insignificant recovery periods - the last two of which were further complicated by my previous extreme adverse reaction to ultram, codiene, any codiene derivative, and most other pain medications (a reaction that, in the last instance, persisted for more than 12 hours, even though I'd taken Zofran - also known as the pot pill – and included, but was not limited to, loss of all stomach contents, the incipient high, and the ability to keep down anything, even water) - and after the resulting-not-unexpected difficulty with alleviating post-operative pain effectively, or sleeping much, I asked the Diety,
"Why me?"
There was no great booming voice from the sky.
I did hear a gentle voice of indeterminate gender saying, "Your plea is very important to us. However, all of our representatives are currently busy with other supplicants. Please hold and be assured that we will deal with each supplicant in the order that the plea was received."
After that, I heard the most beautiful choral music, almost like Tallis and Bach had gotten together on it.
After several days, I lost the connection.
I thought of trying back, but I've lost my place in the queue, so…
Anyway, how have you been?
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Hello 2013
Welcome to Lucky 2013!
The following are our predictions for the coming year (well, OK, it isn't January - or February or March - but I put in for repairs in early January and have been pretty out of commission for most of 2013's first quarter; some would say it's a long-standing condition, but anyway...):
Political Prediction: The Republicans will continue their strategy of driving the country, thus the world, deeper into the economic doldrums, blaming the Democrats for the result, and trusting that nobody will notice. Thereby proving that, indeed, man does not learn from experience.
[N.B. This was written on December 27, 2012. Despite the Republican autopsy (of the November election, I hasten to add) - and despite the gentlemen who said, "Why should I pay taxes for that? That's the government's job; the government should do that!" - that prediction seems to be holding so far. Notwithstanding the excellent opportunities the Republicans are creating for the Democrats in the mid-term elections - not to mention 2016, some of us actually miss the two-party system that represents rich liberals and rich conservatives fairly equally and, at times, the rest of us. We miss the days when there were "throw more money at it" Democrats on the left and "let 'em stand on their own feet" Republicans on the right and possibility of agreement somewhere in the middle that might actually the benefit at least some of the rest of us. Now the Democrats are the middle, the Republicans are the moderate to extreme right and there's nothing left for the rest of us (pun intended). Sadly, we see no end in sight. Figuratively speaking, at least.
Population Health Prediction: Obamacare will continue to roll out, Republicans will continue to claim gloom and doom, and somebody - possibly Democrats - will notice that Obamacare is actually pretty middle-of-the-road and entirely too focused on Health Care. [Again, this prediction, made in December 2012, seems to be holding up fairly well. I'd pat myself on the back but my shoulder is too sore just now.] There is nothing wrong with Health Care, as I am still here to assert because of excellent Health Care. However, wouldn't it be nice if we decided to save money by changing the conditions that cause disease and disability instead of doing the expensive mopping-up? Rather than worrying about why and how folks end up in the ER, wouldn't it make sense to keep the ER available for man-made and natural disasters (sadly both all too frequent) and fund the preventive Public Health services that make so many expensive health care events less costly or even unnecessary. We're thinking here of education about what a constitutes a healthy family; health policy to improve unhealthy neighborhoods; access to healthy, safe outdoor playgrounds and parks; restaurant and agriculture inspections; health policy against development of food that might hurt people; legislation to make air and drinking water safe and available. We're even thinking about reproductive health information available to everyone capable of reproducing, whether or not we approve of their behavior. [Time out for a pet peeve: Why is it that our Congress can't agree on reasonable limitations on guns and ammunition, saying people should be free to protect themselves in spite of the immoral actions of a few, and at the same time Congress won't agree on equal access to health information about deadly sexually transmitted diseases because people should not be free to protect themselves because of the immoral actions of a few? Perhaps if we let a few of those admittedly immoral congressmen back into office, this contradictory stance will change. Right?]
Global Climate Change Prediction: Finally, the ever-present question: Is there hope for humanity? Note that this question is not, "Is there hope for the earth?" The earth will do fine, thanks for asking. It's the large mammals who won't fare so well if we humans do not change our climate changing ways. Given that we are included in this set of endangered species (large mammals) one would think self-interest might lead us to stop kidding ourselves about global climate change. However, one should not think any such thing because, to paraphrase my Life User's Manual©, fairly equal amounts of heredity, environment, and self-deception have gone into the makeup of you and me. And the self-deception third seems to be winning when it comes to global climate change. Nonetheless, one can always hope. I for one hope that environment will win out over self-deception in some way that does not include either the extinction of large mammals over the next few thousand years or the survival of the very rich and their large-mammal pets and servants in bubble-cities, bubble-farms, bubble-ranches, and bubble-resorts spotted strategically around the globe.
On that jolly note, Happy New Year. Or Earth Day. Whichever comes first.
The following are our predictions for the coming year (well, OK, it isn't January - or February or March - but I put in for repairs in early January and have been pretty out of commission for most of 2013's first quarter; some would say it's a long-standing condition, but anyway...):
Political Prediction: The Republicans will continue their strategy of driving the country, thus the world, deeper into the economic doldrums, blaming the Democrats for the result, and trusting that nobody will notice. Thereby proving that, indeed, man does not learn from experience.
[N.B. This was written on December 27, 2012. Despite the Republican autopsy (of the November election, I hasten to add) - and despite the gentlemen who said, "Why should I pay taxes for that? That's the government's job; the government should do that!" - that prediction seems to be holding so far. Notwithstanding the excellent opportunities the Republicans are creating for the Democrats in the mid-term elections - not to mention 2016, some of us actually miss the two-party system that represents rich liberals and rich conservatives fairly equally and, at times, the rest of us. We miss the days when there were "throw more money at it" Democrats on the left and "let 'em stand on their own feet" Republicans on the right and possibility of agreement somewhere in the middle that might actually the benefit at least some of the rest of us. Now the Democrats are the middle, the Republicans are the moderate to extreme right and there's nothing left for the rest of us (pun intended). Sadly, we see no end in sight. Figuratively speaking, at least.
Population Health Prediction: Obamacare will continue to roll out, Republicans will continue to claim gloom and doom, and somebody - possibly Democrats - will notice that Obamacare is actually pretty middle-of-the-road and entirely too focused on Health Care. [Again, this prediction, made in December 2012, seems to be holding up fairly well. I'd pat myself on the back but my shoulder is too sore just now.] There is nothing wrong with Health Care, as I am still here to assert because of excellent Health Care. However, wouldn't it be nice if we decided to save money by changing the conditions that cause disease and disability instead of doing the expensive mopping-up? Rather than worrying about why and how folks end up in the ER, wouldn't it make sense to keep the ER available for man-made and natural disasters (sadly both all too frequent) and fund the preventive Public Health services that make so many expensive health care events less costly or even unnecessary. We're thinking here of education about what a constitutes a healthy family; health policy to improve unhealthy neighborhoods; access to healthy, safe outdoor playgrounds and parks; restaurant and agriculture inspections; health policy against development of food that might hurt people; legislation to make air and drinking water safe and available. We're even thinking about reproductive health information available to everyone capable of reproducing, whether or not we approve of their behavior. [Time out for a pet peeve: Why is it that our Congress can't agree on reasonable limitations on guns and ammunition, saying people should be free to protect themselves in spite of the immoral actions of a few, and at the same time Congress won't agree on equal access to health information about deadly sexually transmitted diseases because people should not be free to protect themselves because of the immoral actions of a few? Perhaps if we let a few of those admittedly immoral congressmen back into office, this contradictory stance will change. Right?]
Global Climate Change Prediction: Finally, the ever-present question: Is there hope for humanity? Note that this question is not, "Is there hope for the earth?" The earth will do fine, thanks for asking. It's the large mammals who won't fare so well if we humans do not change our climate changing ways. Given that we are included in this set of endangered species (large mammals) one would think self-interest might lead us to stop kidding ourselves about global climate change. However, one should not think any such thing because, to paraphrase my Life User's Manual©, fairly equal amounts of heredity, environment, and self-deception have gone into the makeup of you and me. And the self-deception third seems to be winning when it comes to global climate change. Nonetheless, one can always hope. I for one hope that environment will win out over self-deception in some way that does not include either the extinction of large mammals over the next few thousand years or the survival of the very rich and their large-mammal pets and servants in bubble-cities, bubble-farms, bubble-ranches, and bubble-resorts spotted strategically around the globe.
On that jolly note, Happy New Year. Or Earth Day. Whichever comes first.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Vote!
Whichever way this presidential election turns out, it will be an historical turning-point. We the people of the United States of America (USA) will decide history in 2012. If you are a citizen of the USA, your history-making, two-part task this year is to…
make sure you are registered
and
vote.
Except in North Dakota, where you just need to show up and vote.
Everywhere else, you need to be registered first. Already done, you say. I have my card – somewhere, you say. It ain't necessarily so.
You need to check your registration status. Especially if your party affiliation (including "None") doesn’t happen to coincide with that of your State's chief election official. You see, your State's chief election official is responsible for maintaining voter rolls and certifying them to the Federal Election Commission. Your chief election official may, in an excess of reporting zeal, have caused your name to be removed from those certified voter rolls, effectively making you unregistered. This is likely because, as we all know, voter fraud was a serious problem in prior elections. Especially in the 1930's. So these State officials in charge of assuring proper election practice (oddly, especially those who came into office on a Republican ticket) are being very careful to leave no suspicious voter registration unaffected. Oddly, still, these challenges result in people being summarily dropped from the voter rolls. Oddly, again, the persons dropped seem mostly to be registered Democrats and those with no party affiliation. Go figure.
Check your registration status. In some States, you must be registered long before the election, so you may not be able to vote if you don't check now. I am not trying to badmouth any political party, but in some places (notably, the USA), people have gotten to the polls only to find out their registration is no longer valid. At that point, they may find they can't vote. The fact that, historically, most of these people were registered as Democrats is probably just because most registered voters are Democrats. Anyway…
Don't let this happen to you. Embrace the hassle and return it if it happens to you. Use the following simple steps:
Step 1: Check now whether you are registered to vote (unless you live in North Dakota). Go ahead; I'll wait. To check online, search on "chief election official statename".
Note: If you are younger than 17½ years of age and not registered, you have to wait until you are 17½ to do this step. Then, you must wait until you're 18 to proceed with Step 6. (Pay more attention in Civics class, OK? If they don't teach civics in your State, check iCivics or some such.)
Additional Note: You may find that you have to be persistent in finding your voter record. For example, Colorado's Republican Secretary of State has a lovely website; however, clicking on the homepage link to "My Voter Information" or on "Verify/Update My Voter Information" in the Alphabetical Index yields a page that says "Requested Range Not Satisfiable." It must be a glitch. Oddly enough, only clicking on "Voter Registration" in the Alphabetical Index seemed to yield a page with a link for verifying your registration record. With all the money the Secretary of State just spent checking voter records, you think he'd have made the website easier to use for those of us who want to make sure we're still registered. Oh, wait…
Step 2: If you aren't registered, your name has been removed, or any of the information is incorrect, register or re-register. You can complete a mail-in form online at Rock the Vote or register with your chief election official. If you show up as a registered voter and all the information about you is correct, so far so good.
Step 3: Wait a week or so and check your registration again. If necessary, re-register, correct bad information, and/or repeat the correction/registration process. If everything was OK both times you checked, hop over to Step 5; otherwise go to Step 4.
Step 4: If you had to re-register you can mail or email a written complaint – depending on whom you trust – to the State's chief election official, your State Governor's office, your local newspaper, and/or your State ACLU affiliate. Or, of course, all of the above.
Step 5: If you vote by mail, make sure you have your voting packet by mid-October, and repeat Steps 1-4 as needed if you don't. If you vote at the polls, take with you to your polling place your proof of voter registration (or a valid, State-recognized ID, if you live in North Dakota and haven't voted at that polling place before).
Step 6: Vote.
Too much trouble? I know I haven't blogged in a long time (old age, backbone and spinal problems, car getting rear-ended, you don't even want to know), but surely you remember that my steps are simple, not easy.
You will make the difference in this election. If you vote, it will be the difference you helped choose.
If you think it doesn't matter who gets elected President of the USA, you must have been in a coma from 2003 to 2008, and I hope you are feeling better.
make sure you are registered
and
vote.
Except in North Dakota, where you just need to show up and vote.
Everywhere else, you need to be registered first. Already done, you say. I have my card – somewhere, you say. It ain't necessarily so.
You need to check your registration status. Especially if your party affiliation (including "None") doesn’t happen to coincide with that of your State's chief election official. You see, your State's chief election official is responsible for maintaining voter rolls and certifying them to the Federal Election Commission. Your chief election official may, in an excess of reporting zeal, have caused your name to be removed from those certified voter rolls, effectively making you unregistered. This is likely because, as we all know, voter fraud was a serious problem in prior elections. Especially in the 1930's. So these State officials in charge of assuring proper election practice (oddly, especially those who came into office on a Republican ticket) are being very careful to leave no suspicious voter registration unaffected. Oddly, still, these challenges result in people being summarily dropped from the voter rolls. Oddly, again, the persons dropped seem mostly to be registered Democrats and those with no party affiliation. Go figure.
Check your registration status. In some States, you must be registered long before the election, so you may not be able to vote if you don't check now. I am not trying to badmouth any political party, but in some places (notably, the USA), people have gotten to the polls only to find out their registration is no longer valid. At that point, they may find they can't vote. The fact that, historically, most of these people were registered as Democrats is probably just because most registered voters are Democrats. Anyway…
Don't let this happen to you. Embrace the hassle and return it if it happens to you. Use the following simple steps:
Step 1: Check now whether you are registered to vote (unless you live in North Dakota). Go ahead; I'll wait. To check online, search on "chief election official statename".
Note: If you are younger than 17½ years of age and not registered, you have to wait until you are 17½ to do this step. Then, you must wait until you're 18 to proceed with Step 6. (Pay more attention in Civics class, OK? If they don't teach civics in your State, check iCivics or some such.)
Additional Note: You may find that you have to be persistent in finding your voter record. For example, Colorado's Republican Secretary of State has a lovely website; however, clicking on the homepage link to "My Voter Information" or on "Verify/Update My Voter Information" in the Alphabetical Index yields a page that says "Requested Range Not Satisfiable." It must be a glitch. Oddly enough, only clicking on "Voter Registration" in the Alphabetical Index seemed to yield a page with a link for verifying your registration record. With all the money the Secretary of State just spent checking voter records, you think he'd have made the website easier to use for those of us who want to make sure we're still registered. Oh, wait…
Step 2: If you aren't registered, your name has been removed, or any of the information is incorrect, register or re-register. You can complete a mail-in form online at Rock the Vote or register with your chief election official. If you show up as a registered voter and all the information about you is correct, so far so good.
Step 3: Wait a week or so and check your registration again. If necessary, re-register, correct bad information, and/or repeat the correction/registration process. If everything was OK both times you checked, hop over to Step 5; otherwise go to Step 4.
Step 4: If you had to re-register you can mail or email a written complaint – depending on whom you trust – to the State's chief election official, your State Governor's office, your local newspaper, and/or your State ACLU affiliate. Or, of course, all of the above.
Step 5: If you vote by mail, make sure you have your voting packet by mid-October, and repeat Steps 1-4 as needed if you don't. If you vote at the polls, take with you to your polling place your proof of voter registration (or a valid, State-recognized ID, if you live in North Dakota and haven't voted at that polling place before).
Step 6: Vote.
Too much trouble? I know I haven't blogged in a long time (old age, backbone and spinal problems, car getting rear-ended, you don't even want to know), but surely you remember that my steps are simple, not easy.
You will make the difference in this election. If you vote, it will be the difference you helped choose.
If you think it doesn't matter who gets elected President of the USA, you must have been in a coma from 2003 to 2008, and I hope you are feeling better.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
No Education...
One of our esteemed members of Congress was quoted today as saying, "There's no education from the second kick of a mule." Oh, sir, you may have something there. We have had multiple kicks from the Republican-led House of Representatives and multiple repetitions of the Republican Big Lie that the stimulus didn't work. And the second kick didn't add to our learning.
But wait a minute. Are we sure of that? What if we go back a bit?
I realize that reviewing history is not something the Republicans in the current Congress favor, but hang in there faithful reader, there may be something here...
Congress prevented the full stimulus that President Obama wanted, but it's his fault that the stimulus didn't work.
First kick from the mule. Well, it was the elephant, actually, but still...
What did we learn? Well, the stimulus did work, even as watered-down as it was. How are your roads compared to before the stimulus? How many of your acquaintances working in construction are back to work now as compared to before the stimulus? Any bridges near you repaired or rebuilt lately? Any new construction at all in your town? In your state?
Resist the Republican disincentive and think back. How many of those new jobs and how much of that new construction happened after the housing bubble burst and after the stimulus? How much new employment and new home purchases happened since the Republican-led, national-debt-related cuts in government funding? Anybody laid off find a job in that time-frame?
The stimulus may have kept us from a world-wide depression.
But wait. The national debt increased because of the stimulus.
Second kick. Still from the elephant in the room, but...
The short-term debt has increased, but the Federal Reserve is buying up the debt so we are paying essentially no interest. None. Read my lips. None. This means that there is no larger long-term debt. This means that if we can just improve employment and slow down mortgage foreclosures, taxes from us middle class folks will eliminate the debt in fairly short order. If we can force Congress to tax the top one percent of wage earners into paying their fair share, there will be no national debt problem even sooner.
Sure enough, no additional learning. The stimulus did work and it's unrelated to the national debt problem. Well, I'll be...
So now, President Obama wants an additional stimulus, which the Republicans resist on the strength of the assertion that the first stimulus didn't work.
By golly, kick number three and still no additional learning.
By golly, esteemed Congressperson, you are right. No additional learning from the second kick from the mule. Or elephant. Or third kick. Whatever.
Thanks ever so.
But wait a minute. Are we sure of that? What if we go back a bit?
I realize that reviewing history is not something the Republicans in the current Congress favor, but hang in there faithful reader, there may be something here...
Congress prevented the full stimulus that President Obama wanted, but it's his fault that the stimulus didn't work.
First kick from the mule. Well, it was the elephant, actually, but still...
What did we learn? Well, the stimulus did work, even as watered-down as it was. How are your roads compared to before the stimulus? How many of your acquaintances working in construction are back to work now as compared to before the stimulus? Any bridges near you repaired or rebuilt lately? Any new construction at all in your town? In your state?
Resist the Republican disincentive and think back. How many of those new jobs and how much of that new construction happened after the housing bubble burst and after the stimulus? How much new employment and new home purchases happened since the Republican-led, national-debt-related cuts in government funding? Anybody laid off find a job in that time-frame?
The stimulus may have kept us from a world-wide depression.
But wait. The national debt increased because of the stimulus.
Second kick. Still from the elephant in the room, but...
The short-term debt has increased, but the Federal Reserve is buying up the debt so we are paying essentially no interest. None. Read my lips. None. This means that there is no larger long-term debt. This means that if we can just improve employment and slow down mortgage foreclosures, taxes from us middle class folks will eliminate the debt in fairly short order. If we can force Congress to tax the top one percent of wage earners into paying their fair share, there will be no national debt problem even sooner.
Sure enough, no additional learning. The stimulus did work and it's unrelated to the national debt problem. Well, I'll be...
So now, President Obama wants an additional stimulus, which the Republicans resist on the strength of the assertion that the first stimulus didn't work.
By golly, kick number three and still no additional learning.
By golly, esteemed Congressperson, you are right. No additional learning from the second kick from the mule. Or elephant. Or third kick. Whatever.
Thanks ever so.
In Memoriam - Barbara Starfield
There is a memorial today for Dr. Barbara Starfield, esteemed primary care and public health advocate, teacher, physician, and much more. Those of us who are unable to attend share in the admiration and sense of loss for this exemplary human being. Fortunately, the example remains in her research, opinions, and in the memories of those who knew her. Those links are just a few examples. Click on links to Surf Canyon or wikipedia link to learn more. Adieu Dr. Barbara Starfield.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Matt's Post
Here's the promised post from Matt Phillips:
Older homes can be quaint and charming, and sometimes are located far enough from cities that residents can avoid unpleasant, unhealthy fumes and pollutants. But despite the benefits, living in older homes can be extremely dangerous.
Asbestos is a natural mineral found in older homes and buildings. Asbestos was primarily used because of its fire-resistant qualities. It was a building a material in some dry wall, insulation, fireproofing, tiles, and heating appliances. It can also be found in textiles and some car parts.
Asbestos removal can be extremely hazardous and must be handled with care to ensure the long-term health of those with the mineral in their homes. Here are some asbestos removal guidelines:
1. If asbestos material is discovered and undamaged, it’s often best to leave it intact. If asbestos is disturbed, the fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can cause a serious lung cancer called mesothelioma.
2. If asbestos is discovered and already disturbed or damaged, do not touch it. Instead, call in a professional asbestos abatement contractor. They are trained and certified to remove asbestos without causing harm to residents or to themselves.
3. Refrain from sanding, ripping, or cutting asbestos materials. If you do speak with a contractor, discuss the possibilities of sealing up the asbestos rather than removing it. In some cases this option could reduce the risk of mesothelioma.
4. If residents of your home have been exposed to disturbed asbestos, it is vital that they seek a doctor and ask for both a mesothelioma and asbestosis screening. Asbestosis is the scarring of the lungs due to asbestos inhalation. Mesothelioma is a lung cancer. Mesothelioma symptoms are subtle and are usually latent for 20-50 years after exposure. If exposed, because of this latency, mesothelioma life expectancy can be extremely short.
So, if you or someone you know lives or spends time in an older building, remember not to panic and not to ignore the possibilities and dangers of asbestos, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.
Thanks, Matt, for this great post.
Dear readers and net surfers, if you like several sources of information, check out these websites, too:
• More information: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medline Plus has info on Mesothelioma and Asbestos with links to more information.
• Correct diagnosis: To help us follow Matt's advice not to panic the Medline Plus page on Mesothelioma reminds us that there's also a non-malignant Mesothelioma.
• Asbestos removal: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes training and accreditation available for asbestos removal professionals. A page on the EPA website shows who has had that training in your state.
• Cost of removal: If you can't afford the removal of disturbed asbestos or sealing up of undisturbed asbestos, go to this page and scroll down to find your State Health Agency. Contact the State Agency and ask if your local public health department will help you make your location safe for everyone in your community. In these days of reduced spending on public health, these programs may have been cut back, but it never hurts to ask.
Wishing you the best of good health,
Sherry
Older homes can be quaint and charming, and sometimes are located far enough from cities that residents can avoid unpleasant, unhealthy fumes and pollutants. But despite the benefits, living in older homes can be extremely dangerous.
Asbestos is a natural mineral found in older homes and buildings. Asbestos was primarily used because of its fire-resistant qualities. It was a building a material in some dry wall, insulation, fireproofing, tiles, and heating appliances. It can also be found in textiles and some car parts.
Asbestos removal can be extremely hazardous and must be handled with care to ensure the long-term health of those with the mineral in their homes. Here are some asbestos removal guidelines:
1. If asbestos material is discovered and undamaged, it’s often best to leave it intact. If asbestos is disturbed, the fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can cause a serious lung cancer called mesothelioma.
2. If asbestos is discovered and already disturbed or damaged, do not touch it. Instead, call in a professional asbestos abatement contractor. They are trained and certified to remove asbestos without causing harm to residents or to themselves.
3. Refrain from sanding, ripping, or cutting asbestos materials. If you do speak with a contractor, discuss the possibilities of sealing up the asbestos rather than removing it. In some cases this option could reduce the risk of mesothelioma.
4. If residents of your home have been exposed to disturbed asbestos, it is vital that they seek a doctor and ask for both a mesothelioma and asbestosis screening. Asbestosis is the scarring of the lungs due to asbestos inhalation. Mesothelioma is a lung cancer. Mesothelioma symptoms are subtle and are usually latent for 20-50 years after exposure. If exposed, because of this latency, mesothelioma life expectancy can be extremely short.
So, if you or someone you know lives or spends time in an older building, remember not to panic and not to ignore the possibilities and dangers of asbestos, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.
Thanks, Matt, for this great post.
Dear readers and net surfers, if you like several sources of information, check out these websites, too:
• More information: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medline Plus has info on Mesothelioma and Asbestos with links to more information.
• Correct diagnosis: To help us follow Matt's advice not to panic the Medline Plus page on Mesothelioma reminds us that there's also a non-malignant Mesothelioma.
• Asbestos removal: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes training and accreditation available for asbestos removal professionals. A page on the EPA website shows who has had that training in your state.
• Cost of removal: If you can't afford the removal of disturbed asbestos or sealing up of undisturbed asbestos, go to this page and scroll down to find your State Health Agency. Contact the State Agency and ask if your local public health department will help you make your location safe for everyone in your community. In these days of reduced spending on public health, these programs may have been cut back, but it never hurts to ask.
Wishing you the best of good health,
Sherry
More Frequently Avoided Questions...or Not
Well, friends, I apologize for neglecting you these many days since our last one-sided chat.
It turns out that my head really wasn't screwed on straight. And as you might expect, it was causing all manner of problems beyond those you've observed over the years.
I had neck-adjusting surgical repair in early March, complete with brand new screws to hold the wire staple in place (or something very like it if the x-rays are being honest). So there I was - slooooowly adjusting to my corrected perspective and having celebrated Independence Day with family and friend (hope you're not jealous) - driving my back-comforting, brand new, hardly-ever-been-used, 2002 Lexus and proceeding dutifully to my first post-op, professionally guided neck stretching (also known as physical therapy). And I was caught by surprise between an inattentive driver to the rear and stopped traffic in front.
Talk about irony. Good thing it's my favorite form of humor, n'est-ce pas?
The good news is that the surgical repair held, which is really good news because everything else is going to pot (and not the fun, unencumbered-by-ambition kind). The rest of the backbone is jumbled, collapsed, or otherwise extremely irritated. The muscle systems want to hold tight and scrunch everything up in anticipation of the next attack, which is a natural reaction for them but not really what the backbone needs. And the gut has found a weak spot in the muscle wall and is making a run for it. Who wouldn't?
Health care advisers assure me that the muscles need to firm up and relax, the spinal bones need to distance themselves from each other, and the gut needs to be put in its place. Isn't that just like the establishment, contradicting itself while telling us all to settle down, stop bellyaching, and get back in our places? Only, in this case, all the other body parts do need to stop being so obstreperous so the brain can take that job back. Once again, an uneasy compromise is the order of the day.
In any case, rest assured that some of the kink in the spine is still there and it's likely to be impervious to surgical or therapeutic assault.
And we haven't even gotten to the political won't yet.
Oh well.
I hope you can fend for yourselves for the next little while, and I'll get back to you with Frequently Avoided Questions as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, a guest post was kindly prepared by Matt Phillips, who has been waiting patiently, lo, these many months, to see it posted. So look up there at the top of the screen...
It turns out that my head really wasn't screwed on straight. And as you might expect, it was causing all manner of problems beyond those you've observed over the years.
I had neck-adjusting surgical repair in early March, complete with brand new screws to hold the wire staple in place (or something very like it if the x-rays are being honest). So there I was - slooooowly adjusting to my corrected perspective and having celebrated Independence Day with family and friend (hope you're not jealous) - driving my back-comforting, brand new, hardly-ever-been-used, 2002 Lexus and proceeding dutifully to my first post-op, professionally guided neck stretching (also known as physical therapy). And I was caught by surprise between an inattentive driver to the rear and stopped traffic in front.
Talk about irony. Good thing it's my favorite form of humor, n'est-ce pas?
The good news is that the surgical repair held, which is really good news because everything else is going to pot (and not the fun, unencumbered-by-ambition kind). The rest of the backbone is jumbled, collapsed, or otherwise extremely irritated. The muscle systems want to hold tight and scrunch everything up in anticipation of the next attack, which is a natural reaction for them but not really what the backbone needs. And the gut has found a weak spot in the muscle wall and is making a run for it. Who wouldn't?
Health care advisers assure me that the muscles need to firm up and relax, the spinal bones need to distance themselves from each other, and the gut needs to be put in its place. Isn't that just like the establishment, contradicting itself while telling us all to settle down, stop bellyaching, and get back in our places? Only, in this case, all the other body parts do need to stop being so obstreperous so the brain can take that job back. Once again, an uneasy compromise is the order of the day.
In any case, rest assured that some of the kink in the spine is still there and it's likely to be impervious to surgical or therapeutic assault.
And we haven't even gotten to the political won't yet.
Oh well.
I hope you can fend for yourselves for the next little while, and I'll get back to you with Frequently Avoided Questions as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, a guest post was kindly prepared by Matt Phillips, who has been waiting patiently, lo, these many months, to see it posted. So look up there at the top of the screen...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Redefining Normal
Hello friends and neighbors back here on this little planet on the left side of nowhere.
Which may be better than being on the right side of nowhere.
As a member of the most predatory, most violent species on this little planet, I wish you well.
I wish you peace, long life, and little violence.
I do not hope for it, because that would be to stretch hope too far.
I do not expect it, for obvious reasons.
I wish it.
I was listening to the public television news today, listening to the principal of the Colombine school talk about redefining "normal." We are always redefining "normal."
Generally we use a definition less violent than the previous one, so this is a good thing.
The definition is generally more violent than many of us would like, and that's a bad thing.
But I, among the many of us, I get far more violent – in speech only, because I'm a pantywaist – than I would like. I don't seem to be alone in that. That is not a good thing, but I'm working on it.
I'll bet you are, too. And that's a good thing.
But my point is, less is more.
Violence is less violent than it used to be. Example: torture is less disfiguring.
Extremism is less extreme than it used to be. Example: the average white person is able to recognize a person of color as a human being. OK. Almost. But still.
Self satisfaction is a little bit less self satisfied.
And that's as it should be, always.
So anyway, how was your Wednesday?
Uneventful, I hope.
Which may be better than being on the right side of nowhere.
As a member of the most predatory, most violent species on this little planet, I wish you well.
I wish you peace, long life, and little violence.
I do not hope for it, because that would be to stretch hope too far.
I do not expect it, for obvious reasons.
I wish it.
I was listening to the public television news today, listening to the principal of the Colombine school talk about redefining "normal." We are always redefining "normal."
Generally we use a definition less violent than the previous one, so this is a good thing.
The definition is generally more violent than many of us would like, and that's a bad thing.
But I, among the many of us, I get far more violent – in speech only, because I'm a pantywaist – than I would like. I don't seem to be alone in that. That is not a good thing, but I'm working on it.
I'll bet you are, too. And that's a good thing.
But my point is, less is more.
Violence is less violent than it used to be. Example: torture is less disfiguring.
Extremism is less extreme than it used to be. Example: the average white person is able to recognize a person of color as a human being. OK. Almost. But still.
Self satisfaction is a little bit less self satisfied.
And that's as it should be, always.
So anyway, how was your Wednesday?
Uneventful, I hope.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Sunday, Sunday
There are many things to think about on a Sunday morning. But this Sunday, not so very many. This Sunday I will not finish my almost annual, always belated new year's greeting.
This Sunday, I can't think back to last year, only to yesterday. Only to yet another use of firearms to stop beating hearts. Only to this country's separate and separating ideologies that erupt all too often in senseless violence. Only to Judge John M. Roll who was and always will be younger than I am today. Only to Gabrielle Giffords, who is more moderate than most conservatives in Europe, and may she continue to be for may years. Only to those unnamed, grief-stricken families.
This Sunday, I'm thinking about the politicians and reporters who whip up a frenzy of fear, exaggerations, and extremist predictions. And who are probably standing with heads bowed today. And who make me wonder if they feel any guilt at all.
When did we let our disagreements carry us so far? Can we find our way from here to a spirited, sane, honest, non-violent debate of ideas? Devoid of accusatory rhetoric? Silent on the private, personal behavior of others? Mute about the motives of anyone but, for each of us, our own selves?
We can never make this right. Should we try to make ourselves a little more right? This year, I resolve to try -- to be a little more accurate and a little less righteous; to be a little less sure that the opposition has less right to speak than I do; maybe even to consider differences instead of attacking them. I might work up to joking about them. But not today.
This Sunday, I can't think back to last year, only to yesterday. Only to yet another use of firearms to stop beating hearts. Only to this country's separate and separating ideologies that erupt all too often in senseless violence. Only to Judge John M. Roll who was and always will be younger than I am today. Only to Gabrielle Giffords, who is more moderate than most conservatives in Europe, and may she continue to be for may years. Only to those unnamed, grief-stricken families.
This Sunday, I'm thinking about the politicians and reporters who whip up a frenzy of fear, exaggerations, and extremist predictions. And who are probably standing with heads bowed today. And who make me wonder if they feel any guilt at all.
When did we let our disagreements carry us so far? Can we find our way from here to a spirited, sane, honest, non-violent debate of ideas? Devoid of accusatory rhetoric? Silent on the private, personal behavior of others? Mute about the motives of anyone but, for each of us, our own selves?
We can never make this right. Should we try to make ourselves a little more right? This year, I resolve to try -- to be a little more accurate and a little less righteous; to be a little less sure that the opposition has less right to speak than I do; maybe even to consider differences instead of attacking them. I might work up to joking about them. But not today.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Mostly Apologetic
Well, here I am, just as the quote introducing my last blog warned, happily wrong. Luckily, this is a well-accustomed state, so I can deal with it. I hope you can, too.
Wrong about what, you ask? Well, even if you didn't, here goes.
I stated that "the primary reason [for the deficit] is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened." That was inaccurate. I should have said, "the primary reason under the control of the incoming Democratic party is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened."
The primary reason for the deficit was that the housing bubble burst. I can, perhaps, be foergiven for this lapse because my husband and I purchased a house just before the bubble burst and are one of those many families suffering the consequences. So how could I have forgotten? That old human capacity for selective memory was operating with its usual efficiency.
Nonetheless, I do apologize for such a gross misstatement. Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department: The reason for the deficit is that the housing bubble, unsustainable, burst. Sadly, many, many families are in much worse trouble than mine as a result.
Sadly, too, many of those families voted for the Republican party because the Obama administration did not fix this. This is especially sad because it was largely the Republican administration that caused this problem, although many Democrats are not innocent.
Sadly, finally, anything that could have been done to fix this problem is now less likely because all those Republicans were elected. I'm not against a two-party system, only against a right-leaning middle (Democrat) and a far-freaking-right-wing (Republican) party being the only viable choices.
This is so sad that I can't think of a farbleatziong thing funny to say about it. I hope you can forgive that, too.
Mostly apologetic,
Sherry
Wrong about what, you ask? Well, even if you didn't, here goes.
I stated that "the primary reason [for the deficit] is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened." That was inaccurate. I should have said, "the primary reason under the control of the incoming Democratic party is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened."
The primary reason for the deficit was that the housing bubble burst. I can, perhaps, be foergiven for this lapse because my husband and I purchased a house just before the bubble burst and are one of those many families suffering the consequences. So how could I have forgotten? That old human capacity for selective memory was operating with its usual efficiency.
Nonetheless, I do apologize for such a gross misstatement. Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department: The reason for the deficit is that the housing bubble, unsustainable, burst. Sadly, many, many families are in much worse trouble than mine as a result.
Sadly, too, many of those families voted for the Republican party because the Obama administration did not fix this. This is especially sad because it was largely the Republican administration that caused this problem, although many Democrats are not innocent.
Sadly, finally, anything that could have been done to fix this problem is now less likely because all those Republicans were elected. I'm not against a two-party system, only against a right-leaning middle (Democrat) and a far-freaking-right-wing (Republican) party being the only viable choices.
This is so sad that I can't think of a farbleatziong thing funny to say about it. I hope you can forgive that, too.
Mostly apologetic,
Sherry
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Vote after Reading
"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), economist (Wordsmith.org, AWAD, 9-3-2010)
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
