You may have noticed my posts on political issues have become less frequent over the past several months. This is due to several factors; no longer fearing the actions of the previous administration not least among them. I also recognize that many readers of this blog prefer I post fun photos and charming anecdotes instead of heated rants (unless they agree with me!).
However, the ongoing health care debate is far too important and far too personal not to discuss and disseminate. In light of Rush Limbaugh's assertion yesterday that Democrats are like Nazis (yet another blow to intelligent discourse under the guise of the First Amendment), today is the appropriate time for this post.
Background & Options
I read Tom Daschle's Critical: What We Can Do About Health Care a few weeks ago. While in general his image is significantly tarnished in my eyes, Daschle is well informed about the history of health care reform and presents ideas similar to Obama's proposed plan in a clear and concise manner.
Like Daschle and other "Nazi" Democrats, I would prefer a national health care plan. "Socialized medicine," if you will. If you saw Michael Moore's movie Sicko you will be presented with an extremely positive (one-sided) view of government-run health care. Despite this, it is a compelling film with startlingly sad personal stories. Everyone should see this film.
Certainly, there are problems. But is it a broken system like ours? Single payer systems seem to be subject to criticism for one of two reasons: aversion to change or lack of knowledge about the alternatives. Regarding the latter, my impressions of Canadian and UK health care come from a number of sources, not the least of which is friends who are from or live in countries with national health care. We haven't spent a great deal of time on the topic, but it seems that health care is not a big issue in these places because it is a right of every citizen. What is there to discuss? Juley, Deb, Jay please pitch in on this if you will!
All this is moot, really, because the proposed changes to health care do not include anything even closely resembling single payer plans. I repeat: Obama is not proposing government-run healthcare. Not because it's not the best choice (at least I believe it is), but because smart politicians know that it will never pass, even with a Democratic majority. Thanks for nothing, Blue Dogs! What was your share of the $187 million in donations from health care related industries?
We offer Medicare for people 65 and over. Why wouldn't we extend this to younger people (i.e., everyone)? Or what about the insurance available to federal employees and the military? Those are government run and even Bill Kristol admits that they are first class. Although it seems that some out there, including a once prominent economist don't realize who runs Medicare and Medicaid. Perhaps this is a marketing problem?
Current Proposals
Reluctantly, I will admit that many reasonable people think the single payer option is not the best choice. I'm not going to encourage another unwinnable battle, especially since I would rather see some change than none at all.
The aversion to change mentioned above is an aversion to what many perceive to be an increase in taxes. We hear about unimaginable sums: billions, even trillions of dollars are figures regularly thrown around in this debate. Where will that money come from? It's an important issue, but one I'm not best equipped to address. This article outlines some proposed ideas. This is not an issue of simply adding spending to an existing system. Changes can bring about many opportunities to save money. Please, read about this. Don't just listen to Sean Hannity.
Yes, cost is a concern. But with 46 million people uninsured in this country, we can't afford not to change this system. Various reform proposals are seeking to provide an option for the uninsured, not to take away what is already there.
If you have insurance, it is probably through your employer. Proposed health care reforms will still allow you to get insurance that way. You have probably seen your premiums go up and coverage go down over the past few years. If you haven't, your employer is taking on the cost. You will see that in your (lack of) salary increase, diminished bonus, or other cost cutting measures at your place of work (no more candy dish? holiday party at the office instead of a restaurant?). Companies that produce goods have passed increased insurance costs along to those who buy their products. Surely you've heard that GM pays more for health care than it does for steel and that health care accounts for $1,525 of every vehicle produced.
When you think of the 46 million uninsured, what comes to your mind? This is somewhat of a Rorschach test. If you picture poor people whom you consider lazy, unhealthy, and deserving of what they get, I can't help you. But I would ask that you stop watching Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly or at least switching it up to some actual news once in awhile (clearly Rush is not on that list).
On the other hand, if you picture middle class people (the poor are covered by Medicaid) whose employers don't offer health insurance (not required of companies with < 50 employees, < 20 or so in some states like Minnesota).
A Personal Take
Health care and insurance are more than just a political issue for me. I have a personal stake, as we all do but may not realize. Often, we don't see an alternative and assume we have to deal with circumstances as they are. That should never be the case.
Chris sustained a $15,000 injury just six months after getting on my health insurance plan through work. I believe we paid $50 out of pocket (plus, of course, many hundreds in monthly insurance premiums). We were certainly not prepared for a $15,000 expense; thank goodness we didn't have to be.
Chris went for years without insurance, which many young, healthy, self-employed people do. We were talking recently about how he was able to start his own business because he didn't really need health insurance and how he may not have been able to do this under different circumstances.
As a worker for "the man," I have never been without insurance. I have had some extremely limited benefit plans (and also some great ones), but have noticed premiums increase and benefits decline in recent years. There was even one year when my parents gave me insurance for my birthday while I was in graduate school but too old to be on their plan. It was only $400 for the year; cheap for insurance, but expensive for a gift!
Now that I'm involuntarily unemployed, I might like to work for myself as well. At least for awhile. I've gotten some projects and done work for Chris, but this really isn't a sustainable situation for one (and only one) reason: the cost of health insurance.
We are eligible for COBRA through my former employer. The premium is about $800 a month. We're grateful for the 65% subsidy through the end of the year, but that $800 is going to be quite a budget blow if I don't have a job by January. We have no chronic conditions, take no medication, and visit the doctor for only regular check ups. But we won't go without health insurance. Accidental injuries happen, as we know!
Although Chris was voluntarily ununisured before we got married, there are millions who are unable to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. I have been researching insurance options because we can't fathom paying $800 a month come January. Have you ever looked into buying insurance on your own? Let me tell you, it is a nightmare. For a reasonable price ($200/month for a couple in their 30s), you basically get a high deductible plan with several coverage restrictions. If you are older, you will pay much more. If you have health problems, you may not be able to get insurance at all. You can't be excluded from a group (employer) plan if you have a pre-existing condition, but you can be turned down for private insurance for any reason.
Opposition
Insurance companies are spending $1.4 million dollars a day to defeat health care reform. If they were not afraid of competition and regulation, why would they spend that kind of money on this effort? Why would we as consumers not want competition? Competition brings prices down. And if the government is so incapable of running anything, what do the insurers have to worry about?
Regarding regulation of insurance companies, think about it this way: do you think an industry (of any kind) should be allowed free reign to charge any price for any service and do business any way they like? That might sound great on the surface, but think about the unregulated activities that led to the Wall Street and mortgage industry debacle. Need I say more?
Free market proponents would say that the market will self-regulate and keep prices reasonable and service high. I don't necessarily buy that and I will give you one example why. Do you remember how much you paid for cable pre-1996? How much do you pay now? How many cable providers are there in your city? One or two plus a couple of satellite providers? No wonder basic cable has increased 200% in 15 years.
Like telecommunications, there is very little competition in the insurance industry. Large employers are able to negotiate to some degree, but individuals have no power at all. A government option will allow people who do not work for large employers to band together and gain some negotiating power. Insurance companies who provide less coverage at a higher price will be edged out or they will have to become more competitive. As consumers of health care, we will finally be in the driver's seat!
Do the Research
It's pointless to address the lies and rumors that are being spread on this topic. But I will ask anyone who feels strongly about health care to please do some research outside of the Fox network, Rush Limbaugh, and conservative blogs.
When those commercials come on television advertising miracle weight loss drugs that "actually burn fat" and will make you thin in days or weeks, we know they're lying. Right? Please tell me we don't believe them. So should be the case with an issue like health care reform. If you hear or read something, don't take it as fact. Do your research. You may continue to disagree that the system needs reform, but at least you won't base your opinion solely on what Fox News tells you to believe.
Health care reform isn't new. Efforts date back to Harry Truman and each attempt has been thwarted by insurers, hospitals, and health care providers with deep pockets often perpetuating lies and misleading statements. If this reform doesn't pass, it will come up again. In the meantime, our health care system will continue to deteriorate as costs encroach on our financial security ever more intensely. Let's fix health care now!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Yes We Did!
Although it was dark when I left the house this morning, I swear the sky was filled with rainbows and lollipops lined the candy-paved streets. OK, everything looked exactly the same. But it does feel a bit like waking up in a grand technicolor Land of Oz after being knocked in the head (repeatedly for eight years).
While every American is better off today, whether they all recognize it or not, there is something larger than a Democrat winning the election. There is significance to the election of an African-American man in a country with a tragic history of racism that we all know exists to this day.
My dear friend Elaine's eldest son, who voted in his first election and youngest son who was born three months ago, will both remember 2008 as the year their president's face looked like theirs. Elaine told me that she's received calls and emails from family around the world - people who have never lived in the US and likely never will - who are inspired and overjoyed by what America has done. A quick look at newspapers around the world affirms their sentiments. It's almost as if we have repaired eight years of damage in one day, though it may not be quite that simple.
As much as I believe in this historic moment, I know we're not there. This is a step in what has been and will continue to be a long journey. A road that I hope will include more firsts. While I am thrilled with President-Elect Obama and was behind him 100 percent, I can't help but think about Hillary. About how seeing my own face reflected in our President's would make this amazing day twice as great. About how Sarah "all-style-no-substance" Palin did more to hurt women than help us.
Bygones. As a country, we made the right choice. I have no doubt about it.
Highlights:
- Although South Dakota went predictably red, Obama won where my favorite people live: Brown, Day, Marshall, Roberts, Brookings, Moody, Lake, plus a few others. You did what you could and your vote absolutely counts in Obama's Popular Vote win - the first Democrat to win a Popular Vote majority since 1964.
- Tim Johnson's blowout of Joel Dyktra in the SD Senate race. Everything I read indicated the race was tight. The first returns I saw were after the victory was called for Johnson. To say I freaked out may be an understatement. I think Chris and Jack were a little scared...
Dykstra ran possibly the most negative campaign in the state's history, yet he claimed to have "run a race we could be proud of." If he takes pride in exploiting a physical disability I truly fear the tactics he would consider shameful. The people of South Dakota are better than that and you proved it last night! This doesn't quite make up for the Daschle-debacle of four years ago, but it's a good start.
- In other excellent news from the Great State, Measure 11 went down in flames. Ten points is frankly too close on an issue like this and I fear that the extremists will never let up. But I think that voters are tired of dealing with this and maybe it will go away for awhile. A similar measure was defeated even more decisively in Colorado. Obama will likely select from one to three new US Supreme Court justices during his first term. It is nearly guaranteed that he wouldn't appoint someone with an agenda that includes overturning Roe v. Wade.
- Kay Hagan's defeat of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Not only was this somewhat of a surprise victory for a Democrat in a conservative state, but it was a defeat of perhaps the most vile campaign tactics our country has ever seen. If you haven't seen the ad Dole ran in the final days of the race, watch it here. Dole accuses Hagan, a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher, of consorting with "Godless Americans" and ends the spot with an image of Hagan and a voiceover pretending to be Hagan saying "there is no God." This is so low even Joel Dykstra might consider it shameful.
- By the narrowest of margins, Indiana went for Obama, the first time a Democrat won the state since 1964. Indianapolis is one of four cities I cover as part of my job. When I was there three weeks ago I was shocked to see four or five Obama yard signs for every McCain yard sign. This was in the conservative suburbs, not the more liberal urban core. Maybe the pollsters should skip the phone calls and drive around instead. That approach would be similarly unscientific and possibly equally accurate!
- Katie Couric, CBS' accurate early calls, CNN's graphics and OMG was that a hologram of the US Capitol???
Lowlights
- It appears Al Franken lost his MN Senate bid to Norm Coleman by (at most recent count) 477 votes. Coleman has claimed victory, but an automatic recount looms. As Bonnie mentioned this morning, every vote really does matter. There are worse people than Coleman to send to Washington as representatives of the interests of Minnesotans (see: Michelle Bachmann) and this one could change, but it could be weeks before we know.
- Michelle Bachmann's Sixth District victory over El Tinklenberg. He was initially a long shot, but after Bachmann's Anti-American accusations, his chances skyrocketed. Unfortunately, there were enough voters who want Bachmann to continue speaking for them.
- California passed Proposition 8, effectively rescinding the right of all people to marry granted earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. Opponents have already filed a lawsuit challenging the vote. I'm not gay, I'm already married and I don't live in California. I do, however, strongly favor people's right to marry whomever they choose. We haven't heard the end of this issue, in California or nationwide.
- Alaskans appear to be as discerning in selecting their Senator as they were their governor. While the race remains undecided, convicted felon Ted Stevens maintains a slim lead over his Democratic challenger. I know they like to do things differently in Alaska and, frankly, who's to say that a governor has to read the newspaper or know more than one Supreme Court decision? Being a dimwit is one thing; being a criminal is quite another.
- Even Tom Brokaw couldn't convince me to watch NBC. Election night will never be the same without Tim Russert and his whiteboard. As much as I was in awe of CNN's holo-graphic-mania, Russert's no-frills election coverage was second to none.
***
President-elect Obama used the phrase "We are the ones we've been waiting for" in his Super Tuesday speech last February. While not original and criticized as over-the-top cheesy, it is these words that have been going through my head for the past day.
I would have voted in this election no matter what. I've voted in every presidential election since 1980, even if I no one actually counted my vote in the first three. What amazed me and encouraged me were all the people I know who voted for the first time. Who told me they weren't interested until now.
Perhaps it takes a situation so dire and a past so unpleasant for all of us to understand that the future really is in our hands. And collectively, it is our right, our responsibility to affect the change we seek. For it is the will of the individual, multiplied 133 million times (and counting), that defines Democracy.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
While every American is better off today, whether they all recognize it or not, there is something larger than a Democrat winning the election. There is significance to the election of an African-American man in a country with a tragic history of racism that we all know exists to this day.
My dear friend Elaine's eldest son, who voted in his first election and youngest son who was born three months ago, will both remember 2008 as the year their president's face looked like theirs. Elaine told me that she's received calls and emails from family around the world - people who have never lived in the US and likely never will - who are inspired and overjoyed by what America has done. A quick look at newspapers around the world affirms their sentiments. It's almost as if we have repaired eight years of damage in one day, though it may not be quite that simple.
As much as I believe in this historic moment, I know we're not there. This is a step in what has been and will continue to be a long journey. A road that I hope will include more firsts. While I am thrilled with President-Elect Obama and was behind him 100 percent, I can't help but think about Hillary. About how seeing my own face reflected in our President's would make this amazing day twice as great. About how Sarah "all-style-no-substance" Palin did more to hurt women than help us.
Bygones. As a country, we made the right choice. I have no doubt about it.
Highlights:
- Although South Dakota went predictably red, Obama won where my favorite people live: Brown, Day, Marshall, Roberts, Brookings, Moody, Lake, plus a few others. You did what you could and your vote absolutely counts in Obama's Popular Vote win - the first Democrat to win a Popular Vote majority since 1964.
- Tim Johnson's blowout of Joel Dyktra in the SD Senate race. Everything I read indicated the race was tight. The first returns I saw were after the victory was called for Johnson. To say I freaked out may be an understatement. I think Chris and Jack were a little scared...
Dykstra ran possibly the most negative campaign in the state's history, yet he claimed to have "run a race we could be proud of." If he takes pride in exploiting a physical disability I truly fear the tactics he would consider shameful. The people of South Dakota are better than that and you proved it last night! This doesn't quite make up for the Daschle-debacle of four years ago, but it's a good start.
- In other excellent news from the Great State, Measure 11 went down in flames. Ten points is frankly too close on an issue like this and I fear that the extremists will never let up. But I think that voters are tired of dealing with this and maybe it will go away for awhile. A similar measure was defeated even more decisively in Colorado. Obama will likely select from one to three new US Supreme Court justices during his first term. It is nearly guaranteed that he wouldn't appoint someone with an agenda that includes overturning Roe v. Wade.
- Kay Hagan's defeat of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Not only was this somewhat of a surprise victory for a Democrat in a conservative state, but it was a defeat of perhaps the most vile campaign tactics our country has ever seen. If you haven't seen the ad Dole ran in the final days of the race, watch it here. Dole accuses Hagan, a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher, of consorting with "Godless Americans" and ends the spot with an image of Hagan and a voiceover pretending to be Hagan saying "there is no God." This is so low even Joel Dykstra might consider it shameful.
- By the narrowest of margins, Indiana went for Obama, the first time a Democrat won the state since 1964. Indianapolis is one of four cities I cover as part of my job. When I was there three weeks ago I was shocked to see four or five Obama yard signs for every McCain yard sign. This was in the conservative suburbs, not the more liberal urban core. Maybe the pollsters should skip the phone calls and drive around instead. That approach would be similarly unscientific and possibly equally accurate!
- Katie Couric, CBS' accurate early calls, CNN's graphics and OMG was that a hologram of the US Capitol???
Lowlights
- It appears Al Franken lost his MN Senate bid to Norm Coleman by (at most recent count) 477 votes. Coleman has claimed victory, but an automatic recount looms. As Bonnie mentioned this morning, every vote really does matter. There are worse people than Coleman to send to Washington as representatives of the interests of Minnesotans (see: Michelle Bachmann) and this one could change, but it could be weeks before we know.
- Michelle Bachmann's Sixth District victory over El Tinklenberg. He was initially a long shot, but after Bachmann's Anti-American accusations, his chances skyrocketed. Unfortunately, there were enough voters who want Bachmann to continue speaking for them.
- California passed Proposition 8, effectively rescinding the right of all people to marry granted earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. Opponents have already filed a lawsuit challenging the vote. I'm not gay, I'm already married and I don't live in California. I do, however, strongly favor people's right to marry whomever they choose. We haven't heard the end of this issue, in California or nationwide.
- Alaskans appear to be as discerning in selecting their Senator as they were their governor. While the race remains undecided, convicted felon Ted Stevens maintains a slim lead over his Democratic challenger. I know they like to do things differently in Alaska and, frankly, who's to say that a governor has to read the newspaper or know more than one Supreme Court decision? Being a dimwit is one thing; being a criminal is quite another.
- Even Tom Brokaw couldn't convince me to watch NBC. Election night will never be the same without Tim Russert and his whiteboard. As much as I was in awe of CNN's holo-graphic-mania, Russert's no-frills election coverage was second to none.
***
President-elect Obama used the phrase "We are the ones we've been waiting for" in his Super Tuesday speech last February. While not original and criticized as over-the-top cheesy, it is these words that have been going through my head for the past day.
I would have voted in this election no matter what. I've voted in every presidential election since 1980, even if I no one actually counted my vote in the first three. What amazed me and encouraged me were all the people I know who voted for the first time. Who told me they weren't interested until now.
Perhaps it takes a situation so dire and a past so unpleasant for all of us to understand that the future really is in our hands. And collectively, it is our right, our responsibility to affect the change we seek. For it is the will of the individual, multiplied 133 million times (and counting), that defines Democracy.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
Today's the Day!
I don't know about you, but I've been waiting four years for this day. Eight, actually, but I was hopeful four years ago.
I went to the polls before they opened this morning and was already behind about 100 people! It took about an hour, which is not a bad price to pay for the opportunity to participate in democracy.
Please vote in my poll on the right side of the page. I won't ask for whom you voted, only if you did! I can't imagine anyone who reads my blog will say they don't plan to vote. I have no time for people who don't vote and, quite frankly, they seem to be the ones who complain the loudest and are the least informed.
Have a wonderful day and while you cast your ballot remember that this is the beginning of the end of the worst eight years in decades, if not our country's entire history.
I went to the polls before they opened this morning and was already behind about 100 people! It took about an hour, which is not a bad price to pay for the opportunity to participate in democracy.
Please vote in my poll on the right side of the page. I won't ask for whom you voted, only if you did! I can't imagine anyone who reads my blog will say they don't plan to vote. I have no time for people who don't vote and, quite frankly, they seem to be the ones who complain the loudest and are the least informed.
Have a wonderful day and while you cast your ballot remember that this is the beginning of the end of the worst eight years in decades, if not our country's entire history.
Vote No on Measure 11
My South Dakota friends (to borrow a phrase), there's an issue on your ballot next Tuesday about which I feel so strongly that I'm willing to dive head first into a murky pool that most people would rather avoid.
Measure 11 seeks to "prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest."
There is perhaps no issue as emotionally-charged as abortion. It seems nearly impossible to engage in logical, fact-based discourse on the matter, although I will attempt to do so here.
Those familiar with the 2006 failed referendum know that Measure 11 also seeks to make abortion illegal, but this version has added exceptions where the prior version had none. These exceptions are vague and open to interpretation, which could have repercussions for both women and their doctors.
Notably, the new law would make an exception in cases of rape or incest only if it is reported to law enforcement. The woman must also submit to DNA testing, presumably to prove the identity of the father. Could this leave the door open to prohibit an abortion in cases of incest by a non-biological relative or rape by a boyfriend/husband? These requirements will prolong the suffering for victims and could delay the procedure - possibly past the 20 week window.
Abortion to preserve the mother's health seems to be some kind of joke worthy of air quotes (see John McCain in the third debate). Measure 11 permits abortion "to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system." While the latter is almost completely a judgment call, even the risk of death can be debated.
Presumably - although not specified in the measure - medical professionals would determine the health risks involved. However, doctors who perform abortions in South Dakota, should Measure 11 pass, could be charged with a felony and serve jail time. In essence, they would be asked to pit their own best interests against those of their patients. The state's medical community opposes Measure 11.
Measure 11 would have marginal impact on abortion in South Dakota. The state already has what are widely considered to be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. In 2005, South Dakota women obtained abortions at about one quarter the national rate.
Should Measure 11 pass - a recent poll indicates opinions are tied with 12% undecided - it will certainly be challenged at taxpayer expense. Measure 11 would put South Dakota in direct violation of the Due Process Clause granted by the 14th Amendment. South Dakota would be the first state to make abortion illegal, projecting Measure 11's sponsors into the spotlight to challenge Roe v. Wade on the national stage.
It's unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. No one likes abortion. No one aspires to have one. And I'd posit that no one considers it "birth control" as proponents of Measure 11 suggest.
Abortion is not the problem. Lack of access to or ignorance about birth control is the problem. Abstinence-only sex education is the problem. Incest is the problem. Rape is the problem. Tragic physical complications are the problem, albeit the only one over which we have no control. And yes, careless behavior is also the problem.
Here, perhaps, is where opinions begin to diverge and emotions begin to heighten. It can be a challenge to separate facts from feelings. The most common argument I hear from people I know who oppose abortion rights is [fill in the blank] got pregnant when they didn't want to and now can't imagine life without the child.
It's difficult, emotionally, to disagree with that. Logically, however, we know that nothing is that simple. Nor is it fair or accurate to impose our own perspective and experience onto the lives of others.
What [fill in the blank] has and Measure 11 would take away: a choice. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman might make a different choice. Anyone who has pondered this choice would likely consider it the most difficult decision of her life, regardless of the outcome.
We all know that the first abortion was not performed in 1973. Abortions have gone on since the beginning of human life on Earth. It's estimated that as many as 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed annually before Roe v. Wade. That's about the same number as were performed in 2005, despite about 100 million more people in the country. That means the rate was higher than it is today.
The difference between legal and illegal abortions is this: estimates range from hundreds to thousands of women dying every year in botched, back alley abortions. Deaths have been negligible since Roe v. Wade. A woman seeking to end a pregnancy will find a way to get it done. We can either permit access to a safe procedure or risk the complications of DIY abortions.
Is it really government's place to position itself in the middle of this complex, personal decision? If you believe it should remain the decision of a woman, her doctor and whomever she chooses to involve (with the country's most strict regulations already in place), vote NO on Measure 11.
Measure 11 seeks to "prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest."
There is perhaps no issue as emotionally-charged as abortion. It seems nearly impossible to engage in logical, fact-based discourse on the matter, although I will attempt to do so here.
Those familiar with the 2006 failed referendum know that Measure 11 also seeks to make abortion illegal, but this version has added exceptions where the prior version had none. These exceptions are vague and open to interpretation, which could have repercussions for both women and their doctors.
Notably, the new law would make an exception in cases of rape or incest only if it is reported to law enforcement. The woman must also submit to DNA testing, presumably to prove the identity of the father. Could this leave the door open to prohibit an abortion in cases of incest by a non-biological relative or rape by a boyfriend/husband? These requirements will prolong the suffering for victims and could delay the procedure - possibly past the 20 week window.
Abortion to preserve the mother's health seems to be some kind of joke worthy of air quotes (see John McCain in the third debate). Measure 11 permits abortion "to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system." While the latter is almost completely a judgment call, even the risk of death can be debated.
Presumably - although not specified in the measure - medical professionals would determine the health risks involved. However, doctors who perform abortions in South Dakota, should Measure 11 pass, could be charged with a felony and serve jail time. In essence, they would be asked to pit their own best interests against those of their patients. The state's medical community opposes Measure 11.
Measure 11 would have marginal impact on abortion in South Dakota. The state already has what are widely considered to be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. In 2005, South Dakota women obtained abortions at about one quarter the national rate.
Should Measure 11 pass - a recent poll indicates opinions are tied with 12% undecided - it will certainly be challenged at taxpayer expense. Measure 11 would put South Dakota in direct violation of the Due Process Clause granted by the 14th Amendment. South Dakota would be the first state to make abortion illegal, projecting Measure 11's sponsors into the spotlight to challenge Roe v. Wade on the national stage.
It's unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. No one likes abortion. No one aspires to have one. And I'd posit that no one considers it "birth control" as proponents of Measure 11 suggest.
Abortion is not the problem. Lack of access to or ignorance about birth control is the problem. Abstinence-only sex education is the problem. Incest is the problem. Rape is the problem. Tragic physical complications are the problem, albeit the only one over which we have no control. And yes, careless behavior is also the problem.
Here, perhaps, is where opinions begin to diverge and emotions begin to heighten. It can be a challenge to separate facts from feelings. The most common argument I hear from people I know who oppose abortion rights is [fill in the blank] got pregnant when they didn't want to and now can't imagine life without the child.
It's difficult, emotionally, to disagree with that. Logically, however, we know that nothing is that simple. Nor is it fair or accurate to impose our own perspective and experience onto the lives of others.
What [fill in the blank] has and Measure 11 would take away: a choice. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman might make a different choice. Anyone who has pondered this choice would likely consider it the most difficult decision of her life, regardless of the outcome.
We all know that the first abortion was not performed in 1973. Abortions have gone on since the beginning of human life on Earth. It's estimated that as many as 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed annually before Roe v. Wade. That's about the same number as were performed in 2005, despite about 100 million more people in the country. That means the rate was higher than it is today.
The difference between legal and illegal abortions is this: estimates range from hundreds to thousands of women dying every year in botched, back alley abortions. Deaths have been negligible since Roe v. Wade. A woman seeking to end a pregnancy will find a way to get it done. We can either permit access to a safe procedure or risk the complications of DIY abortions.
Is it really government's place to position itself in the middle of this complex, personal decision? If you believe it should remain the decision of a woman, her doctor and whomever she chooses to involve (with the country's most strict regulations already in place), vote NO on Measure 11.
What I'm Thinking...
I know it's been too long since my last blog post when Amber emailed me to say she's going through withdrawal!
Between busy days at work, work-related travel, housework, exercise and trying to squeeze in some fun here and there, blogging has been relegated to the back burner.
Frankly, the election takes up the majority of my spare thinking these days. Do you really want to hear me rave about that again? Great! I thought you did. I have some things to say on some critical issues but I will save (most of) those for a separate post.
I will tell you what I'm thinking about today...
~ Melissa and I are going to see Matthew Sweet at First Avenue tonight. I didn't know he still toured, but can't wait to see him. It makes me feel not so old to know a musician I liked in college is still touring. This time we have general admission tickets so there will be no incidents like at the Gear Daddies.
~ Mom and Dad are coming to visit this weekend! We're going to ride the Minnesota Zephyr dinner train. Reviews are mixed and it's closing at the end of this year (presumably due to low ridership), but it is sure to be an interesting experience.
~ Our guests will get to sample the apple pie I made (and froze) with apples we picked during Suzanne's visit. I also made an apple crisp, which was good but too much for Chris, Jack and me to eat before it became apple soggy.
~ Chris and I saw David Sedaris at the State Theatre last Sunday. Chris has read most of his books, so was happy to hear him read mostly new material. Sedaris was funny and ironic and refreshing to a theatre full of liberal elites two weeks before the election and two days after Michelle Bachmann's embarassed Minnesota with quite possibly her most ridiculous comments yet. Go Tinklenberg! Bonnie and Duane will get to cast their ballots in what's looking like a possible loss for Bachmann! I almost wish I was in the 6th District so I could vote for him too. Ellison certainly doesn't need my vote in the 5th. Is anyone even running against him?
~ Melissa, Chris and I saw W. last Saturday night. Admittedly, I slept through part of it so can't give a full review. As a film, it was quite mediocre. But it did increase my empathy quotient for our current president. I still would never have voted for him, probably for the very reason I empathize with him: he seems fun, like someone you'd want to have a beer with, kind of a screw-up who could never win his dad's approval. Does he seem like someone who would make a good (or even not worst-in-history) president? Not. At. All.
With that, I'll sign off. 13 days to go!
South Dakotans: if you're not registered, it's too late. If you won't be in your home district on November 4, get an absentee ballot.
Minnesotans: register on election day if you're not yet.
As Chris learned last week, you must be a resident (i.e., have a driver's license) 20 days before the election. Too late for him, but he'll vote absentee in Florida. He'll be more help there both to Obama and in the probably futile attempt to defeat their gay marriage ban. Californians will get to vote on the same issue, although that is an attempt to take away an established right. It's also less likely to pass.
I don't understand that issue at all. Why do some people care so much about what other people do in their private lives. Maybe I'll discuss that in a future post. That and South Dakota's Measure 11, which anyone who respects an individual's right to choose and/or the right of medical professionals to make decisions in their patients' best interest will vote against without second thought.
OK, I'm really done for the day now.
Between busy days at work, work-related travel, housework, exercise and trying to squeeze in some fun here and there, blogging has been relegated to the back burner.
Frankly, the election takes up the majority of my spare thinking these days. Do you really want to hear me rave about that again? Great! I thought you did. I have some things to say on some critical issues but I will save (most of) those for a separate post.
I will tell you what I'm thinking about today...
~ Melissa and I are going to see Matthew Sweet at First Avenue tonight. I didn't know he still toured, but can't wait to see him. It makes me feel not so old to know a musician I liked in college is still touring. This time we have general admission tickets so there will be no incidents like at the Gear Daddies.
~ Mom and Dad are coming to visit this weekend! We're going to ride the Minnesota Zephyr dinner train. Reviews are mixed and it's closing at the end of this year (presumably due to low ridership), but it is sure to be an interesting experience.
~ Our guests will get to sample the apple pie I made (and froze) with apples we picked during Suzanne's visit. I also made an apple crisp, which was good but too much for Chris, Jack and me to eat before it became apple soggy.
~ Chris and I saw David Sedaris at the State Theatre last Sunday. Chris has read most of his books, so was happy to hear him read mostly new material. Sedaris was funny and ironic and refreshing to a theatre full of liberal elites two weeks before the election and two days after Michelle Bachmann's embarassed Minnesota with quite possibly her most ridiculous comments yet. Go Tinklenberg! Bonnie and Duane will get to cast their ballots in what's looking like a possible loss for Bachmann! I almost wish I was in the 6th District so I could vote for him too. Ellison certainly doesn't need my vote in the 5th. Is anyone even running against him?
~ Melissa, Chris and I saw W. last Saturday night. Admittedly, I slept through part of it so can't give a full review. As a film, it was quite mediocre. But it did increase my empathy quotient for our current president. I still would never have voted for him, probably for the very reason I empathize with him: he seems fun, like someone you'd want to have a beer with, kind of a screw-up who could never win his dad's approval. Does he seem like someone who would make a good (or even not worst-in-history) president? Not. At. All.
With that, I'll sign off. 13 days to go!
South Dakotans: if you're not registered, it's too late. If you won't be in your home district on November 4, get an absentee ballot.
Minnesotans: register on election day if you're not yet.
As Chris learned last week, you must be a resident (i.e., have a driver's license) 20 days before the election. Too late for him, but he'll vote absentee in Florida. He'll be more help there both to Obama and in the probably futile attempt to defeat their gay marriage ban. Californians will get to vote on the same issue, although that is an attempt to take away an established right. It's also less likely to pass.
I don't understand that issue at all. Why do some people care so much about what other people do in their private lives. Maybe I'll discuss that in a future post. That and South Dakota's Measure 11, which anyone who respects an individual's right to choose and/or the right of medical professionals to make decisions in their patients' best interest will vote against without second thought.
OK, I'm really done for the day now.
What have you read today?
Given all the prime material available, I've written relatively little about Sarah Palin. In part because she's such a joke, but also because I'm waiting to write one comprehensive post about the disservice her mockery of a campaign has done to all women (and, frankly, all intelligent people). Stay tuned for that.
Last night, I saw a new clip from her interview with Katie Couric that has me absolutely at the end of my rope with this nitwit.
In case you missed it:
Where do I even begin? Chris suggested that perhaps she's been over-coached to the point where she's afraid to answer even a simple question for which she has not been fed a canned response.
First, regarding her final paragraph. This nonsensical approach she's taking (here and elsewhere) that she's being unfairly maligned as a know-nothing hillbilly because she comes from a rural state is thoroughly offensive to anyone who has ever lived in a small town.
Palin has proven herself to be a know-little at the very least and has made some hillbilly choices, but speak for yourself, lady. No one I've met from an array of US and foreign cities has ever thought we don't get the news in rural America. I did encounter a cable installer in Rhode Island who was surprised to hear South Dakota had cable. But he did figure we still got the news somehow.
On to the larger issue of evading one of the easiest questions she's been asked, outside the Hannity interview. But I think given what we've seen from Palin in other instances - her frequent inability to string together a complete sentence, for example - it's plausible that she couldn't think of one newspaper or magazine she's read recently.
Or maybe all she could think of was Glamour, People, US Weekly and knew better than to say so. Hey, I'm not knocking these magazines. I read them too.
But within the past week alone I've read at least one article in: New York Times, Washington Post, Star Tribune, Financial Times, Detroit News, Salon and even the Ivanhoe Times. Not to mention hours of CNN and NPR.
I've been a news junkie (or, as some might say, nerd) since my dad introduced me to 60 Minutes when I was four. A love of news content and reporting is why I majored in journalism. I can't fathom that anyone would major in journalism if they weren't interested in news.
Certainly, Sarah Palin majored in something like Russian Studies, right? What? She majored in journalism? Journalism major who can't name a newspaper or magazine? That's like a political science major who can't name the three branches of government. Good grief, please don't ask her that question.
I also know that not everyone likes (or has time) to read about what's going on in the world. Or even to absorb it in small tv soundbites. To quote Palin on an unrelated topic* "that isn’t a choice I would have made. But I am not going to judge people."
What has our country come to, when the candidate for the second-highest office can't even name a single source from which she gets her news? Recent Pew Research Center data indicate that 81% of Americans report seeing, reading or hearing news on a daily basis.
Is anyone else shocked by this? I looked up that data expecting to find the number much lower and then concluding that Palin fits the "just like me" mold. While I've yet to actually meet anyone who votes for people they'd like to be friends/have a beer with, rumor has it they're out there. And that they love Palin for just that reason. She's just like them. They can relate to her.
Well, I can't relate to her for a hundred different reasons. Not the least of which is that she can't or won't name a newspaper or magazine she reads. I want - no, demand - the people I elect to be smarter than me. Keeping up with the world around you is a requirement so elemental in a national leader that it's ridiculous to have to even ask. It's like - to use a Palin-friendly metaphor - playing hockey with no puck. Without knowledge and information she's roaming aimlessly, carrying a big stick.
As you read, watch and listen to news today (since I know you're all part of the 81%), think about what it might be like for the country to be led by someone who doesn't read newspapers. Oh wait, we already know.
Now excuse me while I catch up on the news I may have missed while writing this post.
*this quote is from Palin referring to a long-time friend who is gay. While homosexuality is not a choice, I'm pleasantly surprised by her realtive openmindedness.
Last night, I saw a new clip from her interview with Katie Couric that has me absolutely at the end of my rope with this nitwit.
In case you missed it:
Katie Couric asked Palin what newspapers and magazines she read regularly before becoming McCain’s running mate “to stay informed and to understand the world.”
Here is her response, according to a transcript provided by CBS:
Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
Couric: What, specifically?
Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.
Couric: Can you name a few?
Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Where do I even begin? Chris suggested that perhaps she's been over-coached to the point where she's afraid to answer even a simple question for which she has not been fed a canned response.
First, regarding her final paragraph. This nonsensical approach she's taking (here and elsewhere) that she's being unfairly maligned as a know-nothing hillbilly because she comes from a rural state is thoroughly offensive to anyone who has ever lived in a small town.
Palin has proven herself to be a know-little at the very least and has made some hillbilly choices, but speak for yourself, lady. No one I've met from an array of US and foreign cities has ever thought we don't get the news in rural America. I did encounter a cable installer in Rhode Island who was surprised to hear South Dakota had cable. But he did figure we still got the news somehow.
On to the larger issue of evading one of the easiest questions she's been asked, outside the Hannity interview. But I think given what we've seen from Palin in other instances - her frequent inability to string together a complete sentence, for example - it's plausible that she couldn't think of one newspaper or magazine she's read recently.
Or maybe all she could think of was Glamour, People, US Weekly and knew better than to say so. Hey, I'm not knocking these magazines. I read them too.
But within the past week alone I've read at least one article in: New York Times, Washington Post, Star Tribune, Financial Times, Detroit News, Salon and even the Ivanhoe Times. Not to mention hours of CNN and NPR.
I've been a news junkie (or, as some might say, nerd) since my dad introduced me to 60 Minutes when I was four. A love of news content and reporting is why I majored in journalism. I can't fathom that anyone would major in journalism if they weren't interested in news.
Certainly, Sarah Palin majored in something like Russian Studies, right? What? She majored in journalism? Journalism major who can't name a newspaper or magazine? That's like a political science major who can't name the three branches of government. Good grief, please don't ask her that question.
I also know that not everyone likes (or has time) to read about what's going on in the world. Or even to absorb it in small tv soundbites. To quote Palin on an unrelated topic* "that isn’t a choice I would have made. But I am not going to judge people."
What has our country come to, when the candidate for the second-highest office can't even name a single source from which she gets her news? Recent Pew Research Center data indicate that 81% of Americans report seeing, reading or hearing news on a daily basis.
Is anyone else shocked by this? I looked up that data expecting to find the number much lower and then concluding that Palin fits the "just like me" mold. While I've yet to actually meet anyone who votes for people they'd like to be friends/have a beer with, rumor has it they're out there. And that they love Palin for just that reason. She's just like them. They can relate to her.
Well, I can't relate to her for a hundred different reasons. Not the least of which is that she can't or won't name a newspaper or magazine she reads. I want - no, demand - the people I elect to be smarter than me. Keeping up with the world around you is a requirement so elemental in a national leader that it's ridiculous to have to even ask. It's like - to use a Palin-friendly metaphor - playing hockey with no puck. Without knowledge and information she's roaming aimlessly, carrying a big stick.
As you read, watch and listen to news today (since I know you're all part of the 81%), think about what it might be like for the country to be led by someone who doesn't read newspapers. Oh wait, we already know.
Now excuse me while I catch up on the news I may have missed while writing this post.
*this quote is from Palin referring to a long-time friend who is gay. While homosexuality is not a choice, I'm pleasantly surprised by her realtive openmindedness.
More Facts About Taxes
For my post today, I'll just share this piece from Salon. Straight from the mouth of McCain's economic advisor...
"It's the brand ... and you don't dilute the brand."
One doesn't have to spend 10 years in marketing, as I have, to understand the truth in that statement. We're savvy consumers. We know when we're being taken in or pandered to, at least when it comes to companies that want our money.
But this isn't Coke vs. Pepsi or Crest vs. Colgate. Elections are different. Make a choice, but base it on facts and reasons not propaganda and branding.
It seems that Douglas Holtz-Eakin, John McCain's chief economic advisor, has exposed yet another hole in the Straight Talk Express. Time's Joe Klein reports that in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, Holtz-Eakin admits that the next president will have to raise taxes. "If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," Holtz-Eakin tells Miller.My favorite line - the one that lends some insight into the Republican phenomenon:So why does McCain keep voicing his opposition to tax hikes, and hitting Barack Obama for supposedly wanting them? Holtz-Eakin had an idea about that too. When Miller asked him why Republicans continue to push tax cuts, Holtz-Eakin replied, "It's the brand ... and you don't dilute the brand."
Holtz-Eakin has also previously acknowledged, to Time's Michael Scherer, that Obama's tax plan will lower taxes over 10 years.
"It's the brand ... and you don't dilute the brand."
One doesn't have to spend 10 years in marketing, as I have, to understand the truth in that statement. We're savvy consumers. We know when we're being taken in or pandered to, at least when it comes to companies that want our money.
But this isn't Coke vs. Pepsi or Crest vs. Colgate. Elections are different. Make a choice, but base it on facts and reasons not propaganda and branding.
Seven Years Ago
I can't bring myself to write about today's anniversary, so I will refer you to my post from last year for photos.
It's not so much that I'm feeling blue about the anniversary (I'm almost used to it now) as I am about the past seven years we've spent under this regime and the grim prospect of four more.
Sometimes I enjoy reading comments on sites like Women Against Sarah Palin. But then I just read the opinions of people who think like I do and I wonder even more about the previously undecided voters who say that Palin has swayed them to vote Republican.
I see them on television, hear them on the radio and want to know what could possibly compel them to make such an important decision based on gut instinct. Or a pretty face. Or a love of hunting and fishing. Or blatant lies.
A day like today should remind us just how critical it is that our leaders make measured, well thought out decisions. How can we expect this if we don't act carefully and logically in choosing them?
It's not so much that I'm feeling blue about the anniversary (I'm almost used to it now) as I am about the past seven years we've spent under this regime and the grim prospect of four more.
Sometimes I enjoy reading comments on sites like Women Against Sarah Palin. But then I just read the opinions of people who think like I do and I wonder even more about the previously undecided voters who say that Palin has swayed them to vote Republican.
I see them on television, hear them on the radio and want to know what could possibly compel them to make such an important decision based on gut instinct. Or a pretty face. Or a love of hunting and fishing. Or blatant lies.
A day like today should remind us just how critical it is that our leaders make measured, well thought out decisions. How can we expect this if we don't act carefully and logically in choosing them?
Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself. -Doris Lessing
Facts About Taxes
Half-truths, misinformation, lies. Cynicism, sarcasm, condescension. Politics of fear. These have been the themes this week in St. Paul. More on that after it reaches its pinnacle tonight.
Taxes are one area where Republicans have often succeeded in winning over those who take information at face value without doing their research. When Republicans cut taxes, it's usually not for people like you and me, but they present it to us as though it is.
Here's the reality of the candidates' tax plans, provided by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
It's clear which plan will provide the greatest benefit to the most people. Nine out of ten American households make less than $75,000 a year. Obama's plan will lower taxes for those making up to $227,000 a year, extending tax cuts to 95% of working households.
While McCain's proposal cuts taxes across the board, look at the disparity between the reduction for most of us compared to the benefit to the extremely wealthy.
It doesn't seem fair for hard working people to shoulder an undue share of the tax burden. We all pay the same amount for a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas, but a few dollars here and there can make or break a family struggling to pay the bills.
These are the facts. The choice is clear for those who believe in doing what's right for the greater good rather than catering to their self-serving individualism.
Taxes are one area where Republicans have often succeeded in winning over those who take information at face value without doing their research. When Republicans cut taxes, it's usually not for people like you and me, but they present it to us as though it is.
Here's the reality of the candidates' tax plans, provided by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
It's clear which plan will provide the greatest benefit to the most people. Nine out of ten American households make less than $75,000 a year. Obama's plan will lower taxes for those making up to $227,000 a year, extending tax cuts to 95% of working households.
While McCain's proposal cuts taxes across the board, look at the disparity between the reduction for most of us compared to the benefit to the extremely wealthy.
It doesn't seem fair for hard working people to shoulder an undue share of the tax burden. We all pay the same amount for a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas, but a few dollars here and there can make or break a family struggling to pay the bills.
These are the facts. The choice is clear for those who believe in doing what's right for the greater good rather than catering to their self-serving individualism.
Who?
John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Who? Alaska's governor, apparently. What a ridiculously transparent attempt to target women.
I've always found the concept of a woman Republican to be an oxymoron. Or any other minority. Or anyone whose income doesn't meet John McCain's definition of middle class (i.e., makes less than $5 million per year).
(Oxy)morons aside, this ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters (whose strength and tenacity have been significantly exaggerated) is both laughable and doomed to failure.
He could not have made a better VP choice!
Couple this tragic mis-step with Obama's home run speech last night and, folks, this thing is in the bag.
Anyone who listened to Obama's words last night cannot help but feel motivated and hopeful for the future.
Anyone who was previously uncertain about Obama's plans for moving our nation forward cannot help but feel convinced.
More than ever, we need a Democrat. I vote along party lines. Always. Many people don't and I respect the idea of voting for the person rather than the party.
Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Different stories, same goals. Together, they are the people and the party we need.
I've always found the concept of a woman Republican to be an oxymoron. Or any other minority. Or anyone whose income doesn't meet John McCain's definition of middle class (i.e., makes less than $5 million per year).
(Oxy)morons aside, this ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters (whose strength and tenacity have been significantly exaggerated) is both laughable and doomed to failure.
He could not have made a better VP choice!
Couple this tragic mis-step with Obama's home run speech last night and, folks, this thing is in the bag.
Anyone who listened to Obama's words last night cannot help but feel motivated and hopeful for the future.
Anyone who was previously uncertain about Obama's plans for moving our nation forward cannot help but feel convinced.
More than ever, we need a Democrat. I vote along party lines. Always. Many people don't and I respect the idea of voting for the person rather than the party.
Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Different stories, same goals. Together, they are the people and the party we need.
A few thoughts...
Once again, I neglected to take a single picture of a fun-filled weekend! (Mayday: Mom please send me some pics when you have a chance...)
I'll post some photos later in the week. In the meantime, might I share with you a few thoughts and observations that have been roaming around in my head?
- I listened to Bill Clinton on the radio for about half an hour while driving today. Despite his sometimes ill-advised comments during the campaign, he seems back to his old, inspirational self. I could listen to that guy all day. I'm not sure I've ever felt an ounce of inspiration from our current president. Maybe a little after 9/11 when he gave that speech from atop the rubble. But that was mostly the PTSD. Is it November yet?
- Three young women I know have died needless, tragic deaths in the past three months. I wrote about Katie in April. A couple of weeks ago my second cousin died in a motorcycle accident. Yesterday I found out that a former colleague from New York (to whom I last talked in December 2006), killed herself. I hope 'they' are right when they say these things come in threes. I feel so sorry for all of the families involved.
- I asked Chris to buy limes at the grocery store today. He called to ask how much I thought a lime cost. Fifty cents? Maybe a dollar? Not at Whole Foods. Their limes (possibly filled with gold) are currently going for three dollars. Each. EACH!? There's no recipe that will be so terrible without limes that I would pay that much. Anyone else worried that price increases will never stop? Stock up on Ramen now. You never know!
On a lighter note...
- Angie was crowned Princess in the Miss Delano competition on Thursday night! She rode the float in the 4th of July parade on Friday (the largest and oldest in the state) and that was just the first of dozens of activities she (and Bonnie and Duane) will participate in this year. Congrats!
- We had a great time at Roy Lake. Chris' first ever visit included golf, pontoon ride, convertible cruise, card playing, road trip to Pickerel Lake, a little sunburn and (too much) eating. It's always fun to watch the kids enjoy the lake like we all did years ago. Kailey skied like a pro - way to go!
That's all I have to say for today. Watch for photos later in the week!
I'll post some photos later in the week. In the meantime, might I share with you a few thoughts and observations that have been roaming around in my head?
- I listened to Bill Clinton on the radio for about half an hour while driving today. Despite his sometimes ill-advised comments during the campaign, he seems back to his old, inspirational self. I could listen to that guy all day. I'm not sure I've ever felt an ounce of inspiration from our current president. Maybe a little after 9/11 when he gave that speech from atop the rubble. But that was mostly the PTSD. Is it November yet?
- Three young women I know have died needless, tragic deaths in the past three months. I wrote about Katie in April. A couple of weeks ago my second cousin died in a motorcycle accident. Yesterday I found out that a former colleague from New York (to whom I last talked in December 2006), killed herself. I hope 'they' are right when they say these things come in threes. I feel so sorry for all of the families involved.
- I asked Chris to buy limes at the grocery store today. He called to ask how much I thought a lime cost. Fifty cents? Maybe a dollar? Not at Whole Foods. Their limes (possibly filled with gold) are currently going for three dollars. Each. EACH!? There's no recipe that will be so terrible without limes that I would pay that much. Anyone else worried that price increases will never stop? Stock up on Ramen now. You never know!
On a lighter note...
- Angie was crowned Princess in the Miss Delano competition on Thursday night! She rode the float in the 4th of July parade on Friday (the largest and oldest in the state) and that was just the first of dozens of activities she (and Bonnie and Duane) will participate in this year. Congrats!
- We had a great time at Roy Lake. Chris' first ever visit included golf, pontoon ride, convertible cruise, card playing, road trip to Pickerel Lake, a little sunburn and (too much) eating. It's always fun to watch the kids enjoy the lake like we all did years ago. Kailey skied like a pro - way to go!
That's all I have to say for today. Watch for photos later in the week!
It's June 4th...
The primaries are over and may I say - way to go South Dakotans! You cast your ballots for Hillary, making a clear statement about her campaign even when the nomination is beyond her grasp. How many times was South Dakota mentioned by the national media over the past few weeks? The Great State hasn't received that much attention since before Tom Daschle was inexplicably voted out of office.
I've heard a rumor that Grandma Dottie had front row seats to hear Bill Clinton speak this week in Webster. There may have been a photo-op and hand shaking involved as well. I must investigate this further, but if this is true, to say I'm jealous would be an understatement!
Despite Hillary's win in South Dakota, she doesn't have the delegates to win the nomination. In fact, Walter Mondale's defection this morning will surely be the first of many. Math may not be my best subject, but there is no denying that Obama exceeded 2,118 delegates last night. He's the nominee. End of campaign, or at least it should be.
I'm saying it here: time to end it, Hillary. I also told her this on her website. As if she would listen to me, but she asked for input from supporters and here's what I wrote:
Hillary – You are an inspiration. Your determination and perseverance in this campaign are eclipsed only by the presidential skill and aptitude you have shown the American people. I first voted for you in the 2000 NY Senate race and eagerly anticipated your presidential bid even before that time.
I know, as millions of other do, that you would make a tremendous president. Americans’ voices have been heard in a democratic process that’s part of what makes our country great. While it may not always favor the most qualified or most dedicated, we must respect and uphold the process.
The votes are in and while it was an incredibly close contest, the nomination is not yours. Please end your campaign. There’s so much you can do to, as you said last night, help people. It doesn’t have to be from the presidency. And it’s not going to be. Moving on doesn’t mean giving up. Move on before someone else makes that decision for you. Do it for yourself and for us.
Several times throughout this process, I said I would support Obama if he became the nominee. While still unofficial until the convention, I'm making my support official today (what am I, a superdelegate?). I hope my fellow Hillary supporters will follow suit.
I have expressed concerns about Obama's ability to compete against John McCain with "swing" voters. The more I listen to McCain's weak platform, the less I worry about that. His criticisms that Obama hasn't served in the military and is thus less qualified to be president are ridiculous. Does he really think that military service resonates with many voters today? While McCain's is laudable, I don't believe there are many Americans who gauge candidates on that anymore. I believe his pro-war stance will hinder McCain more than it will help him.
Obama has a difficult five months ahead of him, but ultimately he will persevere. Should the hotly-anticipated (at least by me) Obama/Clinton dream ticket materialize (how about this week?), McCain may as well concede now and we can skip the election altogether!
I've heard a rumor that Grandma Dottie had front row seats to hear Bill Clinton speak this week in Webster. There may have been a photo-op and hand shaking involved as well. I must investigate this further, but if this is true, to say I'm jealous would be an understatement!
Despite Hillary's win in South Dakota, she doesn't have the delegates to win the nomination. In fact, Walter Mondale's defection this morning will surely be the first of many. Math may not be my best subject, but there is no denying that Obama exceeded 2,118 delegates last night. He's the nominee. End of campaign, or at least it should be.
I'm saying it here: time to end it, Hillary. I also told her this on her website. As if she would listen to me, but she asked for input from supporters and here's what I wrote:
Hillary – You are an inspiration. Your determination and perseverance in this campaign are eclipsed only by the presidential skill and aptitude you have shown the American people. I first voted for you in the 2000 NY Senate race and eagerly anticipated your presidential bid even before that time.
I know, as millions of other do, that you would make a tremendous president. Americans’ voices have been heard in a democratic process that’s part of what makes our country great. While it may not always favor the most qualified or most dedicated, we must respect and uphold the process.
The votes are in and while it was an incredibly close contest, the nomination is not yours. Please end your campaign. There’s so much you can do to, as you said last night, help people. It doesn’t have to be from the presidency. And it’s not going to be. Moving on doesn’t mean giving up. Move on before someone else makes that decision for you. Do it for yourself and for us.
Several times throughout this process, I said I would support Obama if he became the nominee. While still unofficial until the convention, I'm making my support official today (what am I, a superdelegate?). I hope my fellow Hillary supporters will follow suit.
I have expressed concerns about Obama's ability to compete against John McCain with "swing" voters. The more I listen to McCain's weak platform, the less I worry about that. His criticisms that Obama hasn't served in the military and is thus less qualified to be president are ridiculous. Does he really think that military service resonates with many voters today? While McCain's is laudable, I don't believe there are many Americans who gauge candidates on that anymore. I believe his pro-war stance will hinder McCain more than it will help him.
Obama has a difficult five months ahead of him, but ultimately he will persevere. Should the hotly-anticipated (at least by me) Obama/Clinton dream ticket materialize (how about this week?), McCain may as well concede now and we can skip the election altogether!
A Not-So-Good Milestone
A long-dreaded event has come to pass. I just paid $4 a gallon - $4.059 to be precise - for gas. My car requires premium fuel, so for the lucky unleaded users it's still below the $4 mark, but probably not for long.
I knew it was inevitable and that it will not be the last painful hurdle (some are predicting $7 a gallon in the not-too-distant future). All indications are that this is not a temporary situation. High prices are here to stay. Gas prices in the US have been relatively low for years. Remember $0.90 a gallon in 1999? In fact, a gallon of gas today costs only about 20 percent more than it did in 1922 (adjusted for inflation).
What are the major factors affecting gas prices?
- The emergence of China and India as economic powers (and the associated increase in oil demand)
- Exhausted oil fields controlled by nationalized companies
- Market speculation (not dissimilar from the housing and tech stock booms)
- Government subsidies in Venezuela, China and Russia that inflate prices elsewhere (the only reason I wouldn't want to live in Norway? $8.73 a gallon gas)
Unfortunately for all of us, years of low gas prices motivated people to buy larger, low MPG vehicles and drive farther and more often. Those who can't or won't (count me in on both) continue to put a sizable portion of their income toward filling our gas tanks will simply have to change our lifestyles.
I bought my 20 MPG car when gas was less than $2 a gallon. My next car will certainly get better gas mileage! I'm doing what I can to drive less, but I've never been much of a drive-around-for-no-reason person.
As consumers, what can we do besides reduce our consumption? Frankly, not much.
On the other hand, car manufacturers can produce cars that get better gas mileage, but they won't unless they're forced to (although the smart ones recognize this as a competitive advantage). This is one of many areas where government intervention is both necessary and effective.
There's little our government can do globally to control oil prices, but they can increase the fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE). The idea of taxing people based on the number of miles driven per year (and other polluting activities) also intrigues me, but I'm guessing that not very many people would like that idea.
I knew it was inevitable and that it will not be the last painful hurdle (some are predicting $7 a gallon in the not-too-distant future). All indications are that this is not a temporary situation. High prices are here to stay. Gas prices in the US have been relatively low for years. Remember $0.90 a gallon in 1999? In fact, a gallon of gas today costs only about 20 percent more than it did in 1922 (adjusted for inflation).
What are the major factors affecting gas prices?
- The emergence of China and India as economic powers (and the associated increase in oil demand)
- Exhausted oil fields controlled by nationalized companies
- Market speculation (not dissimilar from the housing and tech stock booms)
- Government subsidies in Venezuela, China and Russia that inflate prices elsewhere (the only reason I wouldn't want to live in Norway? $8.73 a gallon gas)
Unfortunately for all of us, years of low gas prices motivated people to buy larger, low MPG vehicles and drive farther and more often. Those who can't or won't (count me in on both) continue to put a sizable portion of their income toward filling our gas tanks will simply have to change our lifestyles.
I bought my 20 MPG car when gas was less than $2 a gallon. My next car will certainly get better gas mileage! I'm doing what I can to drive less, but I've never been much of a drive-around-for-no-reason person.
As consumers, what can we do besides reduce our consumption? Frankly, not much.
On the other hand, car manufacturers can produce cars that get better gas mileage, but they won't unless they're forced to (although the smart ones recognize this as a competitive advantage). This is one of many areas where government intervention is both necessary and effective.
There's little our government can do globally to control oil prices, but they can increase the fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE). The idea of taxing people based on the number of miles driven per year (and other polluting activities) also intrigues me, but I'm guessing that not very many people would like that idea.
Hooray for CA!
Today California became the second state in the US (along with Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage.
I've never understood why this is such a controversial issue. Who cares what consenting adults do in private? Finding someone to happily spend your life with is probably one of life's greatest challenges (note that I said "happily"). If two people can achieve that and happen to be of the same gender, who is the government to deny them the rights bestowed on a male/female couple?
Our outlook as a progressive, thinking society is changing and our laws should follow suit. Banning interracial marriage seems ridiculous, yet that was the law in many states as recently as 1967.
While opposition of gay marriage among conservatives is nearly universal (though I'd like to know what Larry Craig and Mark Foley really think), there are a broad spectrum of opinions among liberals. Many - including elected officials I support - favor civil unions, which seem to me like a reincarnation of "Separate But Equal" that will eventually meet a similar fate.
There are certain issues - crime and drugs, to name two - on which my views are rather moderate. On this one, however, I could not be farther to the left. Live and let live, I say, and let's all mind our own business.
I've never understood why this is such a controversial issue. Who cares what consenting adults do in private? Finding someone to happily spend your life with is probably one of life's greatest challenges (note that I said "happily"). If two people can achieve that and happen to be of the same gender, who is the government to deny them the rights bestowed on a male/female couple?
Our outlook as a progressive, thinking society is changing and our laws should follow suit. Banning interracial marriage seems ridiculous, yet that was the law in many states as recently as 1967.
While opposition of gay marriage among conservatives is nearly universal (though I'd like to know what Larry Craig and Mark Foley really think), there are a broad spectrum of opinions among liberals. Many - including elected officials I support - favor civil unions, which seem to me like a reincarnation of "Separate But Equal" that will eventually meet a similar fate.
There are certain issues - crime and drugs, to name two - on which my views are rather moderate. On this one, however, I could not be farther to the left. Live and let live, I say, and let's all mind our own business.
Do you know where your tax dollars go?
I found this breakdown of how our income tax dollars are allocated. I don't know how these numbers compare to the past, but I have a feeling the first two have not always accounted for half our tax dollars.
For every $100 in income tax:
For every $100 in income tax:
- $32 goes to national defense
- $19 goes to interest on the national debt
- $15 goes to supplemental programs such as TANF, child tax credits, and farm subsidies
- $14 goes to health
- $6 goes to education, employment, and social services
- $4 goes to transportation
- $2 goes to administration of justice
- $2 goes to environment and natural resources
- $2 goes to international affairs
- $1 goes to community and regional development
- $1 goes to agriculture
- $1 goes to science, space, and technology
- $1 goes to the commerce and housing funds
Bumper Sticker Sighting
"Laura Bush '08"
huh? Can someone explain this to me? I just don't get it.
I interpret this as a message that she is qualified since she is the wife of a president. If that's the intent, it's an obvious dig at Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, these two people are extremely different in terms of their qualifications.
Let's start with the fact that Clinton is a US Senator. Laura Bush was a teacher and librarian who hasn't had a job in over 30 years. This is a legitimate and even laudable life choice, but certainly not presidential.
Maybe I'm missing the irony or humor, but I really don't think so.
huh? Can someone explain this to me? I just don't get it.
I interpret this as a message that she is qualified since she is the wife of a president. If that's the intent, it's an obvious dig at Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, these two people are extremely different in terms of their qualifications.
Let's start with the fact that Clinton is a US Senator. Laura Bush was a teacher and librarian who hasn't had a job in over 30 years. This is a legitimate and even laudable life choice, but certainly not presidential.
Maybe I'm missing the irony or humor, but I really don't think so.
Take the Challenge
Most of the people who read my blog have no intention of voting for McCain (the correlation is obvious). For those still on the fence (or just for fun), click the link below to take the Bush-McCain challenge.
Bush-McCain Challenge
It's clear that McCain has been trying to differentiate himself from our unpopular president. See for yourself the positions these two have on a few key issues.
Bush-McCain Challenge
It's clear that McCain has been trying to differentiate himself from our unpopular president. See for yourself the positions these two have on a few key issues.
Obama & Fitch?
Did anyone happen to watch Obama's speech last night? If you did, there's no way you could have missed the three guys in Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts standing behind him. See below.
OK, maybe some people (Dad?) didn't notice, but it caught my eye right away. First of all, I always look to see who the campaign has positioned behind the candidate during these speeches.
Of course there's a strategy, as there is with everything in politics. The strategy is usually to place some representatives of their least likely supporters behind the candidate. See the middle-aged white couple in the lower right above. Young people of diverse ethnic backgrounds behind Hillary. Anyone but an older white guy behind McCain.
What's going on with the Obama & Fitch campaign? College frat boys are already part of Obama's base. I don't think Obama has to worry about losing their support, as long as they actually come out to vote and don't get sidetracked at a bar somewhere.
Wait - could it be that they're offering free beer at these rallies? Show us your "I voted" sticker and we'll give you a keg cup? The guy on the far right (number 54) did appear to stumble numerous times and had that red-around-the-eyes "dude, I'm gonna puke" look on his face. (Yes, I was paying more attention to the Abercrombies than I was to the speech. I can't be the only one who's getting bored hearing the same speech after every primary.)
Are these A&F-clad supporters strategy or mere coincidence? My first thought when I saw them was that this was an Abercrombie & Fitch advertising ploy. Unless this is a campaign finance loophole, it seems unlikely.
A more plausible explanation could be that the Obama campaign selected these guys to show their base (carefully mixed with the non-base old folks). Perhaps they are looking to draw in more 20-something women, who are leaning toward Obama, at least publicly. I've read about young closet Hillary supporters who don't voice their opinion in the face of Obama-mania. Who knows.
The more I think about this, though, I wonder if this was one of those rare moments in politics: a meaningless coincidence. With A&F as ubiquitous as it is on college campuses, these guys probably didn't even realize that they were a three-piece walking billboard for $40 t-shirts. And now they are semi-famous. Who knew that conformity could lead to 15 minutes of fame?
OK, maybe some people (Dad?) didn't notice, but it caught my eye right away. First of all, I always look to see who the campaign has positioned behind the candidate during these speeches.Of course there's a strategy, as there is with everything in politics. The strategy is usually to place some representatives of their least likely supporters behind the candidate. See the middle-aged white couple in the lower right above. Young people of diverse ethnic backgrounds behind Hillary. Anyone but an older white guy behind McCain.
What's going on with the Obama & Fitch campaign? College frat boys are already part of Obama's base. I don't think Obama has to worry about losing their support, as long as they actually come out to vote and don't get sidetracked at a bar somewhere.
Wait - could it be that they're offering free beer at these rallies? Show us your "I voted" sticker and we'll give you a keg cup? The guy on the far right (number 54) did appear to stumble numerous times and had that red-around-the-eyes "dude, I'm gonna puke" look on his face. (Yes, I was paying more attention to the Abercrombies than I was to the speech. I can't be the only one who's getting bored hearing the same speech after every primary.)
Are these A&F-clad supporters strategy or mere coincidence? My first thought when I saw them was that this was an Abercrombie & Fitch advertising ploy. Unless this is a campaign finance loophole, it seems unlikely.
A more plausible explanation could be that the Obama campaign selected these guys to show their base (carefully mixed with the non-base old folks). Perhaps they are looking to draw in more 20-something women, who are leaning toward Obama, at least publicly. I've read about young closet Hillary supporters who don't voice their opinion in the face of Obama-mania. Who knows.
The more I think about this, though, I wonder if this was one of those rare moments in politics: a meaningless coincidence. With A&F as ubiquitous as it is on college campuses, these guys probably didn't even realize that they were a three-piece walking billboard for $40 t-shirts. And now they are semi-famous. Who knew that conformity could lead to 15 minutes of fame?
Bitter?
I've refrained from writing about the presidential campaign for several weeks. There are many reasons why, but mostly it's because I'm tired of the negativity. I've been interested in politics for decades (you know you're old when you've been doing anything for decades), but the one thing I can't stand is when the candidates get negative. I start to tune it out.
But there are some things I can't - or refuse to - tune out. One of the reasons I've always been and always will be a Democrat (unless we come up with something better), is because it's the party of the people, the one to whom the average middle-class or working-class American matters.
Certainly, our elected Democrats are rarely middle-class and almost never working-class. But sometimes they were raised without monetary privilege, as were a fair number of Republicans. As I see it, one of the key points that differentiates a Democrat from a Republican (politician or regular person) is the ability to identify with and relate to the issues that affect people different from themselves.
However, last week Obama showed his lack of understanding when he said:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Not only as a small-town and Midwest native, but also as a Democrat and a rational person, I am appalled by this broad-stroke assessment. It is a huge over-simplification and ignorant assignment of a singular mindset to millions of people. In his last sentence above, he essentially concludes Rural Midwest=Bitter=Ignorant gun-toting, bible-thumping racists.
Obama has frequently been identified as an elitist, but until now I didn't necessarily buy it. If or when (and it increasingly looks to be the latter) he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him. But not without reservation, as I don't think he truly understands the majority of the electorate who will (and, indeed, already have) cast their ballots in his favor.
Or as stated more eloquently by Bill Kristol in today's New York Times: "He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize."
"And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?"
Is he really the best candidate to lead the Democrats? We would be wise to consider what other masks might slip between now and November and what we'll find when the real Obama emerges.
But there are some things I can't - or refuse to - tune out. One of the reasons I've always been and always will be a Democrat (unless we come up with something better), is because it's the party of the people, the one to whom the average middle-class or working-class American matters.
Certainly, our elected Democrats are rarely middle-class and almost never working-class. But sometimes they were raised without monetary privilege, as were a fair number of Republicans. As I see it, one of the key points that differentiates a Democrat from a Republican (politician or regular person) is the ability to identify with and relate to the issues that affect people different from themselves.
However, last week Obama showed his lack of understanding when he said:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Not only as a small-town and Midwest native, but also as a Democrat and a rational person, I am appalled by this broad-stroke assessment. It is a huge over-simplification and ignorant assignment of a singular mindset to millions of people. In his last sentence above, he essentially concludes Rural Midwest=Bitter=Ignorant gun-toting, bible-thumping racists.
Obama has frequently been identified as an elitist, but until now I didn't necessarily buy it. If or when (and it increasingly looks to be the latter) he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him. But not without reservation, as I don't think he truly understands the majority of the electorate who will (and, indeed, already have) cast their ballots in his favor.
Or as stated more eloquently by Bill Kristol in today's New York Times: "He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize."
"And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?"
Is he really the best candidate to lead the Democrats? We would be wise to consider what other masks might slip between now and November and what we'll find when the real Obama emerges.
Should we fear flying?
I fly quite frequently. Not on my own like Superman (I wish), but on an airplane supplied by a commercial airline and guaranteed to be safe by the industry's oversight body - the Federal Aviation Administration. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. As we've all learned this week, the FAA has been allowing potentially unsafe planes to continue carrying passengers.
Who, except for the extremely wealthy who benefit directly from the profits made by large corporation (and one would have to question their morality), can honestly believe that lack of oversight and regulation is responsible course of action? If anything, big business needs more oversight.
See the current housing downturn and mortgage crisis for further evidence. Although I won't comment specifically on that because I'd like to remain employed, most of you probably know who I think is largely responsible for that situation. It's not the ones who need the most help, but will not receive much from the housing relief bill passed by the Senate yesterday.
Returning to the topic at hand (although lack of oversight is endemic and the root cause of a host of current problems), the mechanical issues with hundreds of planes owned by numerous airlines seem to be secondary to "horror" of passenger delays. Certainly, I've been delayed and know how annoying it can be. It can only be luck or the grace of God that has prevented a crash due to these ignored problems.
We, average consumers, need protection from profit-hungry corporations. Our government and its agencies are supposed to serve that purpose. But this administration seems to have no concern for anything that shields the average citizen if it is at the expense of corporate profits. As a result, we have no defense. Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I believe our votes in November can change that.
In the meantime, I have two flights scheduled in upcoming months and for the first time since the weeks after 9/11 I will question my safety on board those planes.
Who, except for the extremely wealthy who benefit directly from the profits made by large corporation (and one would have to question their morality), can honestly believe that lack of oversight and regulation is responsible course of action? If anything, big business needs more oversight.
See the current housing downturn and mortgage crisis for further evidence. Although I won't comment specifically on that because I'd like to remain employed, most of you probably know who I think is largely responsible for that situation. It's not the ones who need the most help, but will not receive much from the housing relief bill passed by the Senate yesterday.
Returning to the topic at hand (although lack of oversight is endemic and the root cause of a host of current problems), the mechanical issues with hundreds of planes owned by numerous airlines seem to be secondary to "horror" of passenger delays. Certainly, I've been delayed and know how annoying it can be. It can only be luck or the grace of God that has prevented a crash due to these ignored problems.
We, average consumers, need protection from profit-hungry corporations. Our government and its agencies are supposed to serve that purpose. But this administration seems to have no concern for anything that shields the average citizen if it is at the expense of corporate profits. As a result, we have no defense. Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I believe our votes in November can change that.
In the meantime, I have two flights scheduled in upcoming months and for the first time since the weeks after 9/11 I will question my safety on board those planes.
Posts
