I found this "PBS Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline" interesting.
Especially:
1940's: President Truman offers national health program plan, proposing a single system that would include all of American society.Truman's plan is denounced by the American Medical Association (AMA) , and is called a Communist plot by a House subcommittee.
1970': President Nixon's plan for national health insurance rejected by liberals & labor unions.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Grand Experiments
The only constant is change. Sometimes that fact makes life interesting. Sometimes that fact makes life challenging. Sometimes that fact makes life a major pain in the ass. But it's still a fact. The only constant is change.
I moved here to New Mexico as part of a two-part plan. Part One: live here in affordable housing for three years and then Part Two: move to affordable housing in California. Once I was cozily settled in New Mexico, Part Two miraculously evaporated! Time for a revised Part Two.
It all comes down to my quest for the Holy Grail: shelter and medical care. Quite the quest, I must say. I could remain in New Mexico and continue to have affordable housing, but I don't have adequate medical care and services here. And I need both. I could move back to Maine and have it all but it's just too dang cold.
So my horizon has expanded. If I'm willing to forfeit my savings, I could move just about anywhere that has affordable housing and adequate medical care and services. Miami? Fargo? New Orleans?
I'm going to have to do my homework. Scratch Fargo. I'd kind of like to move somewhere warm.
My stay here in New Mexico has had its up side. I've lived four minutes from my beloved sister and brother-in-law and had a wonderful time with them. I've found my little canine soulmate here. And the jewel in my southwest crown? I'm my own small way, I think I helped to reform the way mental patients are treated here in Clovis. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sometimes the squeaky wheel helps to get ALL of the wheels greased.
It's been a grand southwest experiment. On to my next adventure!
I moved here to New Mexico as part of a two-part plan. Part One: live here in affordable housing for three years and then Part Two: move to affordable housing in California. Once I was cozily settled in New Mexico, Part Two miraculously evaporated! Time for a revised Part Two.
It all comes down to my quest for the Holy Grail: shelter and medical care. Quite the quest, I must say. I could remain in New Mexico and continue to have affordable housing, but I don't have adequate medical care and services here. And I need both. I could move back to Maine and have it all but it's just too dang cold.
So my horizon has expanded. If I'm willing to forfeit my savings, I could move just about anywhere that has affordable housing and adequate medical care and services. Miami? Fargo? New Orleans?
I'm going to have to do my homework. Scratch Fargo. I'd kind of like to move somewhere warm.
My stay here in New Mexico has had its up side. I've lived four minutes from my beloved sister and brother-in-law and had a wonderful time with them. I've found my little canine soulmate here. And the jewel in my southwest crown? I'm my own small way, I think I helped to reform the way mental patients are treated here in Clovis. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sometimes the squeaky wheel helps to get ALL of the wheels greased.
It's been a grand southwest experiment. On to my next adventure!
Animal Pics
I'd like to post links to these in order to give credit to each photographer, but they were sent to me without credits.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Water And Doughnuts
I voted for Barack Obama. I have no regrets. I still support him and continue to place my faith in him.
However, that doesn't preclude me from questioning his judgment now and then and disagreeing with some of his decisions. I realize that politicians engage in politics. That's a no-brainer. It's part of the job description and sooner or later, they all succumb to politics as usual. All of them. Even mine. I just wish that now and then, one of them would own it. Just once.
Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural ceremony was a purely political decision. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "inclusiveness". It has to do with courting evangelicals. Period.
Claiming that this decision was motivated by anything else is an insult to my intelligence. I'm more offended by the rationalizations than I am by the choice. Barry... dude... seriously... pinning one of your inclusiveness badges on the lapel of a man who equates homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and bestiality is tragically laughable. That just ain't change I can believe in.
I don't want to hear lame excuses, Mr. Obama. You're very politically savvy. It's impressive. It works. It won you this election. But don't place unreasonably high expectations on my naivete. Don't expect me to consider your choice of Warren as anything other than politics as usual. Own it. It's no different than your decision to denounce your church. I didn't believe the spin on that one either.
Oh wait.... this just in! I misjudged Pastor Warren. From a Dateline NBC interview:
Q: Your position has raised the specter that you are homophobic.
WARREN: Hahahah! [...]
Q: Are you homophobic?
Q: Are you homophobic?
WARREN: Of course not. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and wanna talk to me, I talk to 'em. When the protesters came, we served them water and donuts.
My mistake. Never mind. It's all good. He served them water and donuts.
People who are offered crumbs at the banquet table of equality are finished saying thank you. Nice doesn't cut it anymore. Compromise doesn't cut it any more (please reference the history of misegenation in the U.S.). Water and donuts doesn't cut it anymore. Accepting the choice of a bigot to play such an honored role in Obama's inauguration ceremony as an exercise in inclusiveness doesn't cut it anymore.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Mowgli Lives!!!
Real-life Mowgli kept alive by cats
By Chris Hastings Last Updated: 8:47AM GMT 20 Dec 2008
A one-year-old boy has been found living rough on the streets, apparently being kept alive by cats.
The boy, whose ordeal mirrors that of the character Mowgli from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, was discovered by police in Misiones, Argentina, surrounded by eight wild cats.
Doctors believe the animals snuggled up with him during freezing nights which would otherwise have killed him.
The boy was seen eating scraps foraged by the animals while they licked him, it has been claimed.
Policewoman Alicia Lorena Lindgvist discovered the child by a canal in the Christ King district of the city.
She said: "I was walking and noticed a gang of cats sitting very close together. It is unusual to see so many like that so I went for a closer look and that's where I saw him. The boy was lying at the bottom of a gutter. There were all these cats on top of him licking him because he was really dirty.
"When I walked over they became really protective and spat at me. They were keeping the boy warm while he slept."
The officer, who noticed scraps of food near the boy, added: "The cats knew he was fragile and needed protecting."
Police have found the boy's father who is homeless and said he had lost the boy several days ago while out collecting cardboard to sell. He told officers cats had always been protective of his son.
A spokesman for Thames Valley Animal Welfare, which deals with feral cats and strays in Berkshire, said: "They would have viewed the baby like a big hot water bottle. Cats will cuddle up to anything to keep warm, even dogs.
He added: "In our experience of cat colonies when a mother has a litter, all the other cats will go and fetch food. The baby could have been feeding off the scraps they brought. Cats in Argentina stay in large packs to survive - much more than cats over here."
In the Jungle Book, Mowgli is raised in the Indian Jungle by wolves.
By Chris Hastings Last Updated: 8:47AM GMT 20 Dec 2008
A one-year-old boy has been found living rough on the streets, apparently being kept alive by cats.
The boy, whose ordeal mirrors that of the character Mowgli from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, was discovered by police in Misiones, Argentina, surrounded by eight wild cats.
Doctors believe the animals snuggled up with him during freezing nights which would otherwise have killed him.
The boy was seen eating scraps foraged by the animals while they licked him, it has been claimed.
Policewoman Alicia Lorena Lindgvist discovered the child by a canal in the Christ King district of the city.
She said: "I was walking and noticed a gang of cats sitting very close together. It is unusual to see so many like that so I went for a closer look and that's where I saw him. The boy was lying at the bottom of a gutter. There were all these cats on top of him licking him because he was really dirty.
"When I walked over they became really protective and spat at me. They were keeping the boy warm while he slept."
The officer, who noticed scraps of food near the boy, added: "The cats knew he was fragile and needed protecting."
Police have found the boy's father who is homeless and said he had lost the boy several days ago while out collecting cardboard to sell. He told officers cats had always been protective of his son.
A spokesman for Thames Valley Animal Welfare, which deals with feral cats and strays in Berkshire, said: "They would have viewed the baby like a big hot water bottle. Cats will cuddle up to anything to keep warm, even dogs.
He added: "In our experience of cat colonies when a mother has a litter, all the other cats will go and fetch food. The baby could have been feeding off the scraps they brought. Cats in Argentina stay in large packs to survive - much more than cats over here."
In the Jungle Book, Mowgli is raised in the Indian Jungle by wolves.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Fire Sale!!!
from wonkette:
McCain-Palin Fire Sale Features $20 Blackberry Phones Full of VIP Emails & Numbers
This fantastic McCain Campaign fire sale doesn't just provide gadgets and office supplies on the cheap - you can also buy enough Republican VIP personal information and incriminating emails to run your own failed presidential run! Local teevee station Fox 5 sent somebody over to the Everything Must Go sale, and while most of the good stuff was gone, there were still 10 Blackberry fancy-phones selling for $20 each. The teevee reporter bought as many as she could afford (two?) and raced back to the newsroom.
Why? Because this newsroom has a Blackberry charger! Everybody presumably stood around anxiously as the batteries recharged, and then it was like Christmas in, er, mid December.
When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night ….
Most of the numbers were private cell phones for campaign leaders, politicians, lobbyists and journalists. We called some of the numbers ….
"They should have wiped that stuff out," another said. But he added, "Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise."
McCain-Palin: Morons to the end.
McCain Campaign Sells Info-Loaded Blackberry to FOX 5 Reporter [Fox 5]
McCain-Palin Fire Sale Features $20 Blackberry Phones Full of VIP Emails & Numbers
This fantastic McCain Campaign fire sale doesn't just provide gadgets and office supplies on the cheap - you can also buy enough Republican VIP personal information and incriminating emails to run your own failed presidential run! Local teevee station Fox 5 sent somebody over to the Everything Must Go sale, and while most of the good stuff was gone, there were still 10 Blackberry fancy-phones selling for $20 each. The teevee reporter bought as many as she could afford (two?) and raced back to the newsroom.
Why? Because this newsroom has a Blackberry charger! Everybody presumably stood around anxiously as the batteries recharged, and then it was like Christmas in, er, mid December.
When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night ….
Most of the numbers were private cell phones for campaign leaders, politicians, lobbyists and journalists. We called some of the numbers ….
"They should have wiped that stuff out," another said. But he added, "Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise."
McCain-Palin: Morons to the end.
McCain Campaign Sells Info-Loaded Blackberry to FOX 5 Reporter [Fox 5]
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sassypants!!
This is from wonkette, one of the funniest political "news" sites on the World Wide Interwebs:
Obama Dares To Speak
His Middle Name In Public!
Barack Obama is so very fancy that he has three names instead of two or even just one, like Madonna, and like the socialist Muslin alien he is, he will insist on reciting all three of his names in a Klingon-Arabic patois when he is sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran. This is an extremely disturbing development, especially given that the last socialist sworn into office - Jimmy Carter - only used two names in accordance with his status as a common prole.
During the campaign, Obama's detractors would often invoke his middle name, Hussein, in an attempt to falsely paint him as a Muslim. Obama, a Christian, doesn't care.
"I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition," he said. "I'm not trying to make a statement one way or another. I'll do what everybody else does."
Well, HUSSEIN BARACK OSAMA, the things that "everybody else does" when they run for president tend to include being white, which you have (half) failed at.
Obama will freak out millions of Americans at his swearing-in when they suddenly discover his middle name is the same as that Iraqi dictator's, and his last name rhymes with the name of the King of Terrorism. This has never, ever before occurred to many of the people who voted against him because he was "scary."
Barack Obama is so very fancy that he has three names instead of two or even just one, like Madonna, and like the socialist Muslin alien he is, he will insist on reciting all three of his names in a Klingon-Arabic patois when he is sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran. This is an extremely disturbing development, especially given that the last socialist sworn into office - Jimmy Carter - only used two names in accordance with his status as a common prole.
During the campaign, Obama's detractors would often invoke his middle name, Hussein, in an attempt to falsely paint him as a Muslim. Obama, a Christian, doesn't care.
"I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition," he said. "I'm not trying to make a statement one way or another. I'll do what everybody else does."
Well, HUSSEIN BARACK OSAMA, the things that "everybody else does" when they run for president tend to include being white, which you have (half) failed at.
Obama will freak out millions of Americans at his swearing-in when they suddenly discover his middle name is the same as that Iraqi dictator's, and his last name rhymes with the name of the King of Terrorism. This has never, ever before occurred to many of the people who voted against him because he was "scary."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
put the bible down! step away from the bible!
Here's a link to an interesting Newsweek article - OUR MUTUAL JOY - about gay marriage. It's a well written piece that explores what the bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality, but as far as I’m concerned, it makes no sense to argue for equal rights by quoting the bible.
Trying to decipher an ancient text which has been revised a thousand times by men who want it to reflect their political and judgmental beliefs and then using your interpretation of their hazy tome to prove that we all deserve equal rights is an utter complete abdication of logic.
You can't argue with drunks, idiots, rabid conservatives or religious zealots, especially not religious zealots, so why try? Why allow them to define the discourse by agreeing to allow their dusty old book to determine your talking points? Why? Use logic, not fairytales to define the parameters of your argument.
Rarely can you change someone’s political or religious beliefs. Oh Snap! That's so cynical! I know it is, but I've found it to be true 99% of the time so why bother trying? Walk around them rather than trying to walk through them as you march toward equality. I think I recall a couple of things from government class (which isn't much because my schoolin' style consisted of spacing out during class and then cramming enough into my very short-term memory to pass the tests and then forgetting most of it). Anyway, as I recall, there are certain federally guaranteed inalienable rights in this country – the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think equality is implied in there somewhere. And if it isn't, then it should be. It wasn’t for African-Americans until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. I say go for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment specifically stating that two consenting adults are entitled to enter into a civil union with ALL of the same benefits and responsibilities as a married couple (and that would of course include the right to adopt). Not a California State Constitutional Amendment. The states are legally obligated to uphold the federal constitution, aren’t they? So go for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s the only solution.
Civil unions should be a federal matter, not a state matter, not a church matter. Why pursue it in the pew? Pursue it in the Federal Courts and the Legislature. Yes, it might be a good idea to wait until a few more of the Supreme Dinosaurs are replaced. But eventually, once it gets all sorted out and becomes the law, and it will... then deal with your church. And if they say no to gay marriage, find a new church. Easy for me to say having never been gay and having never been part of a religious community but if I was, I would choose one that respects me and affords me the same right to sanctify my union - if I so choose - as it affords every other member of the congregation.
I am anything but conservative, but I honestly think that pursuing the right to civil union is the most important first step in this process. It guarantees equal rights under the law. Less important to me is the right to a religiously sanctioned marriage. It is important to many gay couples. I understand that. But using the term “marriage” has turned the Proposition Eight issue, for example, into a big gnarly cultural semantic Gordian knot. We've glued civil and religious unions together and at this point in time, I don’t think that the two can be reconciled. According to my own personal lexicon, "marriage" is not a civil institution so why are we asking the government to declare that it is? Isn't “marriage” an institution that one pursues within one's church? And a “civil union” is not a religious institution so why ask the religious community to join hands with each other and sanction it? How many different kinds of churches are there in America? How many of them are gonna sanction an “abomination”? Who cares what they think anyway? They don't write the laws.
Now I admit that I'm totally out of touch with the religious world. We had a barefoot pregnant backyard hetero-hippy wedding in the 70's. There was no mention of god. We just recited some organic hyperbolic granola-fueled vows about mother earth and the cosmos, had a group hug and cut the wholewheat wedding cake. I honestly can't remember the process we went through to obtain our marriage license but I'm pretty sure it wasn't religious in nature.
Why not just rename "marriage license" as "civil union license". Couples, gay and str8, can go down, get their license from city hall, thus procuring their legal rights and then from there decide what they want to call it and whether or not they want a wedding ceremony. Let's let the fundamentalists have the word "marriage" stricken from the licensing process. That's our concession. Once we've got the civil union license we can declare ourselves "married" and there's nothing they can do from the pulpit to take that away.
The right to a civil union is fundamental. From there, it's up to the individual couple. They can declare themselves married, they can have their marriage sanctioned by a church (if they can find one that will do it) or they can have a barefoot backyard homo-hippy wedding, cut the tiramisu wedding cake and simply declare themselves married.
End of pompous lecture.
Trying to decipher an ancient text which has been revised a thousand times by men who want it to reflect their political and judgmental beliefs and then using your interpretation of their hazy tome to prove that we all deserve equal rights is an utter complete abdication of logic.
You can't argue with drunks, idiots, rabid conservatives or religious zealots, especially not religious zealots, so why try? Why allow them to define the discourse by agreeing to allow their dusty old book to determine your talking points? Why? Use logic, not fairytales to define the parameters of your argument.
Rarely can you change someone’s political or religious beliefs. Oh Snap! That's so cynical! I know it is, but I've found it to be true 99% of the time so why bother trying? Walk around them rather than trying to walk through them as you march toward equality. I think I recall a couple of things from government class (which isn't much because my schoolin' style consisted of spacing out during class and then cramming enough into my very short-term memory to pass the tests and then forgetting most of it). Anyway, as I recall, there are certain federally guaranteed inalienable rights in this country – the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think equality is implied in there somewhere. And if it isn't, then it should be. It wasn’t for African-Americans until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. I say go for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment specifically stating that two consenting adults are entitled to enter into a civil union with ALL of the same benefits and responsibilities as a married couple (and that would of course include the right to adopt). Not a California State Constitutional Amendment. The states are legally obligated to uphold the federal constitution, aren’t they? So go for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s the only solution.
Civil unions should be a federal matter, not a state matter, not a church matter. Why pursue it in the pew? Pursue it in the Federal Courts and the Legislature. Yes, it might be a good idea to wait until a few more of the Supreme Dinosaurs are replaced. But eventually, once it gets all sorted out and becomes the law, and it will... then deal with your church. And if they say no to gay marriage, find a new church. Easy for me to say having never been gay and having never been part of a religious community but if I was, I would choose one that respects me and affords me the same right to sanctify my union - if I so choose - as it affords every other member of the congregation.
I am anything but conservative, but I honestly think that pursuing the right to civil union is the most important first step in this process. It guarantees equal rights under the law. Less important to me is the right to a religiously sanctioned marriage. It is important to many gay couples. I understand that. But using the term “marriage” has turned the Proposition Eight issue, for example, into a big gnarly cultural semantic Gordian knot. We've glued civil and religious unions together and at this point in time, I don’t think that the two can be reconciled. According to my own personal lexicon, "marriage" is not a civil institution so why are we asking the government to declare that it is? Isn't “marriage” an institution that one pursues within one's church? And a “civil union” is not a religious institution so why ask the religious community to join hands with each other and sanction it? How many different kinds of churches are there in America? How many of them are gonna sanction an “abomination”? Who cares what they think anyway? They don't write the laws.
Now I admit that I'm totally out of touch with the religious world. We had a barefoot pregnant backyard hetero-hippy wedding in the 70's. There was no mention of god. We just recited some organic hyperbolic granola-fueled vows about mother earth and the cosmos, had a group hug and cut the wholewheat wedding cake. I honestly can't remember the process we went through to obtain our marriage license but I'm pretty sure it wasn't religious in nature.
Why not just rename "marriage license" as "civil union license". Couples, gay and str8, can go down, get their license from city hall, thus procuring their legal rights and then from there decide what they want to call it and whether or not they want a wedding ceremony. Let's let the fundamentalists have the word "marriage" stricken from the licensing process. That's our concession. Once we've got the civil union license we can declare ourselves "married" and there's nothing they can do from the pulpit to take that away.
The right to a civil union is fundamental. From there, it's up to the individual couple. They can declare themselves married, they can have their marriage sanctioned by a church (if they can find one that will do it) or they can have a barefoot backyard homo-hippy wedding, cut the tiramisu wedding cake and simply declare themselves married.
End of pompous lecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)