South Park “gets it”

I have just recently rediscovered the satirical brilliance that is South Park.  For the first time, I watched their Emmy award winning episode, Imagination Land, and of course, I’d recommend it to anyone that is mature enough.  It crosses the line a bit more often than their other episodes (little woodland creatures anyone?), but that’s the beauty of the show, Parker and Stone are never afraid to push the limits of humor.  While at times, they rely on crude, toilet rim humor, it is their satire on current events and American society that elevate the show to a different level of brilliance.  This is probably why the show has been on the air for over 10 years!

 

Quickly, Imagination land is about our imagination being invaded by terrorists, the South Park gang going into the land to try and save it, the U.S. government trying to nuke it, and Cartman’s plan to get Kyle to suck his balls…standard stuff.  However, what I want to focus on, and what shows me that South Park really “gets it,” is when Stan asks, why do the people that we invent throughout history, have some of the strongest impact on our society?

 

Now let me just throw a few names out there and let’s see what type of reaction I can stir up; Santa Claus, Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Holden Caulfield, God (?), King Arthur, the Greek Gods, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Cinderella, Odysseus, Uncle Sam, the Marlboro Man, Uncle Tom, Romeo and Juliet, Jim Crow, Barbie, superman, Rosie the Riveter.  Just think for a bit now, on how much of an impact all of these literary figures, or in other words, made up people, have had on global and American culture…

 

Throughout history, every society creates their own mythical figures that take on a life of their own.  They hold such power that eventually, they are treated like they actually exist, like a part of society, and more importantly, it becomes normal to think this way.  Not only do they seem real, but they become the envy of actual humans, and they establish themselves as models of society.  Look at Barbie, Harry Potter, and the Marlboro Man; they became such influential figures that children and adults alike have modeled their behavior and appearance to resemble these imaginary people.  Now these may seem like harmless figures in the books we read and the advertisements we see, but the power and persuasiveness they wield is the envy of any dictator throughout history.  Boys and Girls will dress up like Harry Potter, dedicate years of life to the films and books, and it will leave such a lasting mark in their minds that it will last for generations to come.

 

Now if you want to look at the most extreme examples, you can turn to religion.  Whether you believe in god or not, that’s fine, but if you look at the monotheistic and polytheistic gods throughout history, you cannot deny how the belief in the existence of an all encompassing being has transformed the world forever.  I don’t think I can do it justice here, and many other have written about the impact of religion on civilizations, but if there is one example of how our imaginations can lead to hope, love, death, destruction, prejudice, and salvation, the god(s) are the prime example.  God can be seen as a staggeringly brilliant, incomprehensible creation of human society, a real tribute to the power of our minds.

 

Now, what is the point of even bringing this up?  Is the power of human imagination a positive or negative genetic trait?  Clearly, this is open to interpretation, and history has shown us the pros and cons surrounding the influence of literary figures.  But what I have been pondering, is that the power of imagination is what makes human beings so remarkable.  We have the ability to use our minds to create entirely different worlds outside of our own.  The power to design a person, whom only survives in our brains, to exist in the real world as if they walk amongst us.  Yes, this can be both a good and bad thing, but more importantly, it is an awe-inspiring aspect of human society, a trait that helps us survive, enlightens us, and progresses us as a society.  Whether it is used on a personal level for your own enjoyment, or on a transformational level in our lives, our imaginations influence is unparalleled, and is a biological trait that has and will continue to change the world.  Part of the American dream, is that if you believe in something hard enough, it will come true.  When you think about it, we have all been taught to be our own Peter Pan’s at heart.  And it is this hope and belief in dreams that makes the imagination a beautifully human experience.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

What are we buying with this debt?

This is the second post written by Tim.  He has been a big supporter of the site, and hopefully he will become a regular contributor. (ed. note)

National debt is something which the United States has had since its founding. From the very start the United States was indebted to foreign nations for assisting in the finance of our war for independence against the British. In fact there has only been one time, in the illustrious history of the United States, where we were fully debt free, with a $0 balance. This was in 1935 under President Andrew Jackson. This also is in part blamed for an economic slowdown in the ensuing years, as well as one of the few occurrences of deflation in the US economy. Thus furthering the debate of whether or not having debt can in fact be healthy.

In a recent New York Times article, they opened that…

“The Obama administration said Friday that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended was $1.4 trillion, nearly a trillion dollars greater than the year before and the largest shortfall relative to the size of the economy since 1945.”

 

The debt went from $459 billion in the 2008 fiscal year, to $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year. The chief causes for this are obviously the stimulus package, as well as the recession which started at the dawn of the 2009 fiscal year. Compounding these two issues, one increasing expenses the other lowering income, it is not hard to see how there was such a large jump.

 

Looking at the history of the United States debt as a percentage of GDP, there are key historical points responsible for the sudden jump in debt. The American Revolution contributed to early debt, the Civil War caused the debt spike of the 1860’s, World War I for the early 20th century, World War II for 1940’s, and the end of the Cold War for the 1980’s. What is the great goal for the debt of the 21st century? What will the big return on our investment? I guess time will tell.

 

Debt at every level, whether it is in a household, or a nation, is properly used when it is taken on to improve future returns. You take on debt in order to pay for college, and then you get a better job which pays it off. Simple. We took on debt to fight the Revolution, and won, so our reward was founding a successful modern republic. We fought the Civil War and kept the country from being divided, spoiling the efforts of the Confederacy to destroy the Union. In World War I we bought a temporary peace, and helped break the stalemate of destruction in Europe. In World War II we stopped two evil war machines, and the slaughter of millions of people in Europe and Asia. The Allies defeated Japan and Germany and the US emerged as one of the two super powers of the world. The arms race of the 1980’s in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of its physical symbol, the Berlin Wall. Not to mention leaving the United States as the lone super power of the globe.

 

Now we must ask ourselves, why the debt now? What is the payoff? To me there is not a clear answer. However it is likely that the answer in all of these cases was not clear right away. Some possibilities I came up with are we could free the world of terrorism. Eliminate the Taliban and similar cells making the world a safer place. Maybe we can make Iraq the beacon of hope in the Middle East, after eliminating the undoubtedly horrendous regime of Saddam Hussein. Maybe the big payoff will be universal health care, or just getting out of this recession.

 

My thoughts are we either are going to have to get payoffs of some form from all of the above, or we will be scratching our heads somewhere in the future wondering what happened. Debt only makes sense when there is a payoff as a result, and right now we do not have a clear payoff which is the problem. The other possibility of course is that we do not need a big payoff, and debt may not be as bad as it is made out to be. I am anxious to hear what everyone’s thoughts are on what the payoff is, or is supposed to be, and whether or not it is worth it.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Is health insurance a right or a privilege?

I’ve been watching C-SPAN all day (exciting, I know), as the House is debating and preparing for a vote on the Democrats big health care reform bill.  Unfortunately, there is so much lying and distortion being thrown around that it has becoming impossible to distinguish fact from fiction.  It’s actually quite an experience to see our elected officials present their opinions and try to convince/scare those that are in limbo to support their position.  It is a bit sad that if you are looking for some insight into the bill, listening to our representatives is not the best way to do it.  I recommended reading the bill, but if you can’t read 2000 pages, you should read this 10 page summary and get yourself educated on it.  Now, I’m not going to preach about the bill, or about the debate between our two parties.  It’s very clear that no matter what Democrats say, or Republicans say, there is something greater than a bill that is separating the parties.  It is more theoretical, much more symbolic of an opinion on the role of the government, and the role of individuals in a greater society.  There is a real question that everyone is afraid to ask that will reveal the core beliefs of those that are liberal, and those that are conservative.  What we all need to think about in order to formulate an educated opinion is to figure out what side we are on, is health care a right, or a privilege?  If you can answer this question as a right, you support the bill, as a privilege, you’re against it, it’s that simple.

I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult it is for American’s without health insurance, or American’s that are denied coverage because of their insurance or pre-existing conditions.  My own personal, and very diminutive story about the health insurance industry happened to me recently.  I have been having some chronic back pain, and my doctor suggested that I try a prescription anti-inflammatory to try and alleviate the symptoms.  However, my insurance (one of the best in the country) told me that they would not be willing to pay for it because it is too expensive.  They “suggested” that I try these lesser alternatives, and if they don’t work, then they will think about approving the original medicine.  My doctor told me that this is a common story, and that it would take months of paper work and red tape to cut through to get the medicine they prescribed.  Therefore, I had to take the lesser medication, and my pain has not subsided.  I can’t fathom what someone with a deadly illness has to endure to get the medicine that they truly deserve.  Does health care have to be all about the money, just like every other competing industry?

How bad is it for American’s who have trouble buying, and maintaining health insurance?  Imagine being laid off from your work, struggling through bankruptcy, getting dropped from your provider, having your world turned upside down because of your personal health.  You are struggling to find a job, you have to use money you have been saving to cover doctors visits, or you can’t even go to the doctor because you cannot afford to pay for it yourself.  The treatment that you have been taking for years is all of a sudden suspended because you lost your job and coverage.  Why should anyone be living with this fear of losing it all, this uncertainty about your health, your future, and your families livelihood?  Through any illness that an individual or a family goes through, all they want to be able to say is, “we’ll be ok…we’ll be ok.”

Health insurance is a privilege. Health insurance should be subjugated to the open market, and people should be free to purchase or not purchase whatever plan they want.  Nobody should be forced to buy into something, and nobody should be given anything for free that will burden taxpayers.  Those that can afford the best coverage should get it, those that cannot, may need to settle for something less, this is just the nature of capitalism and it works.  Health care will remain at its highest level of effectiveness when medical personal are not forced to dumb down their work to a universal level.  Those that are healthy will have a better life, those that are not, unfortunately will have to spend more of their own money to improve it.  It is an honor and a privilege to be able to afford quality health care, and it is something every American should strive for to protect themselves and their family.

Health insurance is a right. Health insurance should not be subjected to the law of “survival of the fittest.”  Nobody should be denied health care due to their genetic disposition to illness, or the surprises that we all encounter in our lives that lead to doctor visits.  The science and technology is there, we can fight off and prevent so many tragedies, and it is a moral imperative that we use what we have, and give it to each and every American on a need be basis.  The government’s role is to protect and serve its citizens, and to create an atmosphere where you have the right to pursue what you want in your life, without the risk of losing it all due to your health.  The access to affordable, quality health care is an undeniable right, we are all in this together, and we must support each other any way we can.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

what to do with all of this bone marrow…

Everyone has bone marrow, most people need money, most like helping others, and a lot of people have cancer and can’t find a suitable donor, and will die as a result.  Watching Dr. Nancy this morning, the issue of submitting bone marrow for financial compensation came up.  Now the ethical debate here is just about as heavy and challenging as it gets (which is something the medical field is always good for).  Once we start opening up the market to body parts, Pandora’s box may implode, leaving the poor goddess without her namesake.  Let’s look at how the bone marrow registry works first…

 

If you are a relative, or know the patient directly suffering, you can have your bone marrow tested to see if you’re a match.  If you are, and chose to, you can go ahead with the transplant procedure.  This is the best case scenario, and statistically, your family members have the best chance of being a match (the more siblings you have the better).  However, it is no guarantee that a match will be found, therefore, the patient must go into the bone marrow registry where individuals can voluntarily join.  The Be the Match Registry, is set up for bone marrow transplants and PBSC (cells from circulating blood) transplants to search for potential matches.  You can check out their website for guidelines, but basically, you sign up, submit cheek cell swab or blood sample, and just wait for someone to contact you.  After that, there are physical tests, meetings with doctors, and the eventual legitimate surgical procedure (which is not the most pleasant thing to say the least), and then the recovery period and follow up.  Not all procedures are surgical however, sometimes the same results can be achieved through a non-invasive peripheral blood stem-cell donation.

 

Diep Tran over at the OC News has written a couple of interesting articles detailing bone marrow donor issues in the US…

More people need transplants than those who receive them. Out of 10,000 who sought transplants in 2008, only 4,300 received them. This low numbers is due to disparities in access to health care, lack of referrals for such treatment options and the inability to find matching donors.

If you are a member of a minority race and ever in need of a bone marrow transplant, you have less than a 30 percent chance of finding a matching donor because tissue types are the most similar between people of matching ethnicity.

 

Needless to say, you are beating the odds if you find a successful match on the donor registry.  And of course, finding a match is only the first step, there is no guarantee that the transplant will even work!  However, shouldn’t the actual procedure and results be the only daunting aspect, the only part of the process where the patient has to wait and hope?  It is a tragedy that so many patients die every year because they cannot find a suitable donor, or because their insurance and/or race hinders them.  We are talking about human beings, life and death, and mostly children.  What can we do about this?  How do we get more people to register, more minorities to register, how can we flood the market with potential donors?  Well…we can open it up to the market.

 

Is this ethical?  Clearly, this is up to you, and people may need to search pretty deep in their hearts to find an answer.  However, I think if you know someone who has been afflicted with blood cancer, and they were not able to find a donor, this decision may be easier for you.  Is there harm in creating a financial incentive for selling your bone marrow?  If a market were to be created the hope is that it would be controlled, so people are not posting on craigslist to negotiate their own prices.  Continue to go through the registry, but just reward people who decide to sign up.  The insurance companies may have a fit, but it’s their job to protect us.  How many more lives could be saved this way?  No doubt, donor match rates would go up, and save countless lives in the process.

 

The ethical question however is, where does it stop?  The most extreme example would be, people who are struggling for money end up selling off their organs to make ends meat, and hopefully, this day never comes.  Right now, people voluntarily donate blood, and there is not too much of a problem with shortages, but sperm and egg donors can profit from their submissions.  Why should bone marrow be any different?

 

The Registry takes pride in the fact that they are for volunteers only.  It is a truly selfless act, it takes a very special type of person to be willing to go through a procedure like this, the willingness to risk their own life to save someone they don’t even know.  But is this even necessary?  Should it be about saving as many lives as possible, or only saving them the “moral way.”  The fact of the matter is that there are not enough “good” people out there that are willing to do this for free.  Can you blame them?  I don’t think you really can, it’s their body, their choice.  Cancer patients don’t need good people though, they just need people, they just need to find a match.

 

The frustrating part, is that the technology is there, the market would be willing to submit their marrow, but the ethical ramifications are holding us back.  Yes, it is frustrating, but you can also make the argument that it is necessary, that our ethics can put a check on our ambitions.  Is this one of those situations, or are we just too afraid to change?  The sad truth is, that as we debate this moral dilemma, thousands of patients are searching through the registry, and realizing just how tiny a list of ten million donors is.

 

 

 

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

guns don’t kill people, bullets do

update 10/27: feel free to go click happy for my sake on this link to this article at the Baltimore Examiner.

 

I’ve been thinking for a long time about how to approach this topic with as much of an open mind as possible.  I understand the important historical and social attachment that so many people in this country have for firearms.  Our nation was formed through war, and the belief in independence, self defense, and an acceptance of a wide spectrum of values.  The unyielding attachment to traditional values that many conservatives have in the United States, may at times hinder change, but it is admirable in so many ways.  The love and dedication to preserve what has been American since our inception is as patriotic as it gets.  What I am about to propose may seem radical, but I think it is a policy that would pacify both ends of the spectrum, while still preserving our traditional values and need for guns.

It would be ignorant and prejudice of me to have the belief that guns should be abolished.  The progressive movement may be gaining power, but we are an inherently conservative nation that cannot be forced to make rash social decisions in a short period of time.  You cannot convince someone to throw their guns away and forget about the role they have served throughout a families history.  But can’t we just get rid of the homicidal aspect of guns?

Let’s define the role of the federal government in a very general, traditional way.  To protect its citizens so that they can pursue liberty and happiness and wealth without fear.  The state has an obligation to try and create an atmosphere of peace and stability, and part of this, is making sure people don’t get murdered.  I invite you to look through these statistics (chart above) on homicides with weapons provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here are some of their findings for 2005…

Homicides with guns = 11,346

Knife and blunt objects = 2,818

Other weapon = 2,528

Here is a look at the United States Crimes rates in 2008, via the disaster center…

Population = 304,059,724

Violent Crimes = 1,382,012

Murder = 16,272

If there were a way to potentially stop 11,000 murders a year, doesn’t the state have a responsibility to think about taking action.  The solution?  Put a national ban on bullets for any personal gun ownership.  Everyone can keep their guns if they feel an attachment to them, but they will no longer have the ability to kill someone with them.  However, there need to be some exceptions…

1.  Bullets for hunting are allowed, but bullets must be purchased from    designated sites where it can be assured that no bullets leave the hunting grounds.

2.  Shooting ranges can remain in business, but no bullets can be brought into or out of the facility.

These are the only two logical things I can think of, where bullets should be allowed.  However, the argument of self-defense is a very compelling one.  Some feel like the state, and the police force cannot truly protect the public, and that we are entitled to defend ourselves if need be.  My response, if we took the bullets out of the guns, wouldn’t the state be better equipped to protect?  Maybe for a period of 5-10 years, the police force could be armed, as the process of eradicating bullets from the public occurs, but after that, why have them at all?  There is reason that violent crimes in the UK are drastically lower than ours.  There is a reason that students there do not have to fear school shootings.  We may not ever get rid of our guns, but it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the bullets.  Is this even feasible?  Would the state have to raid houses and get too controlling?  Clearly, I do not have an answer to this, and maybe I have too much hope that people would willingly give up their bullets.  But here are some questions I pose to you.  Would this be yet another example of the state trying to control behavior?  Or does the state have a responsibility to try and cut down a fraction of homicides?  Would ridding the country of bullets, but still allowing guns, pacify those who value the history of their guns?

Unfortunately, we live in a country where people are often afraid to walk the streets at night.  Would this solve that problem? No… But would it help?

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Why did we fight?

I think you can see that I have discovered that I can embed videos into my posts.  The novelty should wear off soon.  Nevertheless, I think we can all learn a little something from this American hero…

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

I asked for a response…here it is

hat tip to Tim for taking the time to write this…

The legalizing of marijuana would be a huge mistake and appears to be one that the country is heading towards (notice how I said country and didn’t even bring parties or presidents into the issue). Most of the article seems to be saying “Hah! Obama has better things to do…” I must say I agree, why spend federal resources especially at a time like this to something that is simply self destructive to an individual, their health (mental and physical) and their role in society? I am being serious here, not sarcastic. The government at this present time simply has larger issues to deal with so why go after a controlled distribution of medical marijuana, which 14 out of 50 states have legally passed into law? My gripe however is that this should not be used as an indicator or any kind of leverage towards legalizing marijuana in general, which I have little doubt is what the intention is.

From personal experience, (though not having used marijuana) I can tell you that the current drugs offered to cancer patients in time of suffering do the job. There are nausea medicines, and narcotics that can help you sleep through the pain, and even if you are not asleep you wouldn’t know any better. If you want to escape the world, not feel pain, and not feel alive this option can be obtained readily with the drugs currently being offered. Not to mention other drugs to help the mental well being of patients such as anti-depressants. Why do we need to add a new drug to the ones that work perfectly fine?

It is quite obvious that this is a stepping to stone to legalizing marijuana overall as you hint at the conclusion of your article by saying, “…if the U.S. taxed, [and] regulated the sale and farming of marijuana, it would be the country’s largest cash crop and would get us out of our deficit rather quickly.” I will ignore the excitement over a new way to reach into American’s pockets, and simply address why this is a bad idea:

Let us back track to the 1600’s when tobacco was the great discovery of the new world, and our country was being built on our winning combination of slaves and tobacco. That is sarcasm for any slower readers out there. Tobacco served this purpose of advancing the economy of the British colonies and soon after the newly founded United States of America. The horrendous health effects were not known then, but we now realize the immense cost on our health as well as the overall cost of health. Federal subsidies of tobacco finally ended in 2004, and we continue to tax it relentlessly (not the rich) to prevent people from using it. Do we want to go down this road with marijuana?

Enough of a history lesson let us now examine marijuana, and the effects it would have if it were legal (which would increase its already high rate of usage). The government’s drug abuse website at drugabuse.gov concludes as a result of research that “…someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.” So this may not be that big of deal, it bothers me personally that someone chooses to not live life at the fullest, but why should the government interfere, right?

Turns out it is not just a harmless recreational drug (when used in certain amounts of course). What would you say if marijuana also had adverse effects on the brain from long-term use? “Research on the long-term effects of marijuana abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs.” Long term use also, “leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system.” This means that prolong use can increase stress, making users agitated, and harder for them to deal with their everyday lives and issues. To slam dunk the point the government site goes on to say “A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia.” Something you may not want to give cancer patients, or anyone for that matter.

The act of smoking marijuana also has some physical health issues that we can put a dollar sign on, meaning it has negative effects on us all. For example, “… marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections.” Not to mention increase risk of heart disease as, “Marijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours…” Finally we must consider what this would do to American society, and its efficiency. The bottom line is our economy needs, as every economy in the history of the world needs, a labor force, which is happy, hardworking and efficient. Will marijuana affect this basic need? “A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.”

Legalizing marijuana in anyway is not a road we want to go down. Where will the line be drawn? Do we legalize other recreational drugs since they can make people feel better? The answer is no we do not, because we have plenty of companies and doctors who can develop and prescribe actual medicines to solve the problems associated with illness. Some may also compare alcohol and smoking, legal drugs which have bad effects, to marijuana and ask ‘why can’t marijuana be legal if they are?’ All I have to say to that is that it is a poor argument, with immature logic. Why make the mistakes of yesterday the law of today? (a paraphrase of a quote by Senator John Calhoun)

Legalizing medical marijuana is not worth anyone’s time, not republicans, not democrats, nor independents. People are pushing to legalize marijuana to take care of a medical problem which has already been solved. Nothing good can come from legalizing marijuana to any degree.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Crazy Cal explains “don’t ask, don’t tell” as our fear of homosexuals.

Hi, I'm Cal, and I'm homophobic! Like my cat?

I came across this article, written by Cal Thomas, in the Washington Times this morning.  I am pretty shocked that the editor of the Times would allow such homophobic rhetoric to be published in such an established paper, but the more I think about it , the more I realize that I may be more of the minority in this argument, and some Americans (albeit conservative Americans) will see this article as a breath of fresh air.  And after all, this is Cal Thomas, and he does this stuff allllllll the time for the Conservative Washington Times.  So I will not be breaking any news here, but I figured I would put my thoughts out there so  I’m going to go through some of his arguments and try my best to annihilate them one by one.  Enjoy…

Gay service members have a point when they claim a double standard exists for heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding sexual behavior.

It is definitely more then just a claim of a double standard, it is a fact.  The word claim has a definition of being potentially false, even though the one claiming believes it to be true.  This word has a lot of wiggle room, and Thomas chose it wisely here I think to show that he either one, doesn’t believe there is much of a double standard, or two, and most likely, he doesn’t care that there is one.  I’ll get to this in a bit.  But with DADT, there is a constant fear for homosexuals that they will be, “exposed,” and kicked out of the military.  Is it anyone’s business where you stick what?  Of course not, but it is both prejudice and criminal to fire someone because of it.  I’m assuming, and correct me if I’m wrong, but people don’t just join the military for shits and giggles and a paycheck.  They join because of their love for their country, and the obligation and duty they feel they have to protect and preserve it.  Gay, straight, bi, TV, TS, whatever…This is an unbelievably selfless act that deserves our respect, not our personal prejudices.

But we are beginning in the wrong place. The place to start is whether citizens of this country, through their elected representatives and the military leaders named by them, have a right to determine what type of service members best serve the interests, safety and security of the United States. I contend we do. The military should not be a test lab.

Since when is a homosexual incapable of securing the United States.  And since when did we get in the business of cherry picking who works for us based on sexual preference?  Kind of resembles when we cherry picked who worked and served for us based on the color of their skin.  Weird.  Where I think Thomas goes horribly wrong, is that he is starting with some bullshit security argument, while completely shoving civil rights under the rug.  In America, I thought we started with our rights, because they were guaranteed by our Constitution.  But to throw this argument on his head, I’ll content that I agree with him!  Our military officials should be allowed to chose who will protect us best, they should be allowed to have rigorous screening to identity the best candidates.  But what does being gay have to do with this?  Show me how, a qualified candidate on every level, that happens to be gay, cannot properly serve this country?  Cal.  Please?  Cal?  Right.  Here it comes…

Many heterosexuals find homosexual behavior immoral and not conducive to unit cohesion is of no concern to the social wrecking crew.

This is the main argument, presumably.  And yes, I understand that some people have moral issues with homosexuals, as they feel like they are destroying the world as we know it.  Well this is not a gay persons problem.  It is that individual persons problem, and the problem of the military leaders who fail to educate their troops about treating people with respect (not just a problem with gay’s clearly).  This irrational fear that gay soldiers will starting trying to have sex with everything that walks, and aren’t manly enough to shoot a gun and control a perimeter is disgustingly prejudice and hateful.  Our military needs to  include as many qualified soldiers as we can get!  And even though Thomas states that the military has been having trouble reaching its quotas, it is true that since Obama has been in office, the military has exceeded its recruitment quotas.

The gays-in-the-military and gay-marriage issues are part of a broader attempt by liberals to restructure society. Social activists despise biblical morality (which heterosexuals could use a little more, too), traditional values that have been proved to work when tried and numerous other cultural mores. This is not an opinion. It also is not a secret. The more radical activists have written and spoken openly about their intentions.

We now get to the heart of Cal’s argument, the real reason why he is writing this article that attacks our military personnel.  Cal thinks that liberals are trying to change the society we live in, burn the bible, and allow people to marry cows and soda cans and twix bars.  Cal is just another scared conservative that is clinging to his traditional values of segregation.  Change is difficult, change is painful, but the only way we can survive as a country and a society, is to embrace change.  We cannot forget our Constitution, and how we have progressed as a society, a society which needs to allow homosexuals, aka, human beings, the same rights as those who claim to be heterosexual.  Is this radical?  Or is it the morally correct thing to do?  Can Cal look at himself in the mirror and say that he is a good Christian because he is denying rights, denying certain people to love, and denying them the opportunity to work without fear?

Cal goes on show a current poll that says that Americans favor gays in the military by on overwhelming margin, 69% (many military leaders agree with this too).  The fight is just about over, soon enough, Obama will repeal DADT, and honestly, nothing much will change at all, because most of the military has been waiting for this to happen, and I think they are prepared.  But how Cal ends his article, is just another example of how hatred dies a slow and painful death.  He’s trying to hold onto what he sees as, “the American family,” and all the righteousness that goes along with it…

We will get more of what we tolerate. Sexual behavior is an important cultural and moral issue. Mr. Obama won the election with just 52 percent of the popular vote and a margin of 7 percent over Sen. John McCain. This should not be seen as a mandate for him and his administration to make over America in a secular and liberal image. Neither should it be seen as an invitation to give blanket approval to homosexuality, considered by some to be against the best interests of the people who practice it as well as the nations that accept it.

This is really embarrassing for you Cal.  Who are you to say what’s in the best interest in someones love life?  Didn’t we debunk this bullshit like 10 years ago?  Times are changing.  You need to get on board, or just keep your fears to yourself.  We can only hope that more conservative publications continue to publish hate like this, so that American’s can see just how pitiful and sad it really is.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Obama, Nobel Peace Prize?

Surprised?  You’re not alone.  Some liberals are embracing this fairly sheepishly, and as you can expect, some conservatives (mainly the wing nuts) are calling for Obama to give the award to somebody that has actually done something.  It’s strange to me that anyone would object to our president receiving one of the highest distinctions in the world, especially objecting with such scorn.  Here is our RNC’s statement…

The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’  It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights.  One thing is certain – President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

Very cute guys.  The Democrats hit back hard with their own cheap shot…

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

These are our two national political parties acting like middle school students…pretty standard.

.

I’ve been trying to come up with my own opinion as to why they would give this award to Obama, because, to be honest, what has he achieved that is tangible?  I don’t think the Ledbetter Act, the stimulus package, and the future health care plan are enough to get you a peace prize.  And that’s not me saying that Obama hasn’t done anything yet, I mean geez, it’s only been about 8 months, let’s give the guy a couple of years first.  So without some tangible examples, I moved onto some “outside the box,” (you like that?) examples…

.

It may have only been about a year since the election, but Americans have been very quick to forget the passion, energy, and life changing experience Obama’s election was.  To be the first African American president (well before anyone though it was possible) in the United States, a country that became a superpower due to slavery, a system that was so rooted in our growth that we, to this day, deal with blatant racism in the private and public spheres of society on a daily basis.  Barak Obama defied all of the odds, all of the naysayers who said he didn’t have the experience, all of the critics who have challenged his legitimacy to be our president, all of the racist commentary that has flooded the mainstream media, all of the lies, hate, and fear that has been blasting through megaphones from his opposition.  He has transcended all of the hate with ease, while giving American’s the feeling that they can, and must do the same.

.

During the campaign, Obama gave many Americans something that had been lacking in this nation for decades.   He never promised us a quick fix, or a clear and defined goal of success, he never gave us a magic bullet that would pull American’s out of poverty and despair.  What he gave us, was something more difficult, much tougher to attain, so illusive that any other politician who may have dared to attempt it would have been called a pompous idealist.  But America, and more importantly, the rest of the free world, listened to this man, they listened to his message, and they opened up their hearts to a man they thought would listen.  His slogan, his message, his motivation was simple in wording, but powerful in the context of our world…”Yes we can.”

.

I was a supporter of Hillary during the primary, mainly because, personally, I didn’t need my President to “preach,” to me, or give me hope.  I wanted my President to lead, protect, and pass legislation, all of the frills and bells and whistles can only distract from that.  However, I would not say I am like all Americans. I have a great education, a great family, a great support structure and hopefully a bright future.  However, and many people may tell you that I am wrong here, but my story is the minority in this country, and I think Barak Obama knows that so very well.  I may not need hope, but the  majority of this country and the entire world need it.  I fear that dark times are ahead for Earth.  Violence, hate, and fear are on the rise, and this world needs as much hope as we can grab onto.

.

What did the Nobel committee see in Obama?  They saw a man that for a brief period of time, was able to transfix a country that was trying to find its identity after a tumultuous eight years under the previous administration.  In him, they saw a man that single-handedly brought America back to the international table, a table that embraced him with open arms.  The world has been waiting for this type of man to rise to power in America, a transcending figure of hope, a man that is defined by his message.  What has he done that you can list off and claim as being his?  Not too much, but it will come, he has time.  The Nobel Peace prize is reserved for those rare human beings that transcend themselves.  For people that give to others the ultimate gift.  Obama has given millions of people throughout this world the simple yet powerful message, that things will get better eventually.  The harder we work, the more we sacrifice, and the more we share with others, the better things will get.  The more we love and not fight, the more we speak truths rather than lies, the better things will get.  The more we start acting like Americans and not selfish individuals, the better things will get.  The ability to bottle up hope and spread it throughout the world is something that cannot be overlooked by anyone in the world, let alone the Nobel Committee.  What I see this award as, is the international community giving Obama the torch to take America, and the rest of the world into a new era of hope.  There may be some darkness ahead, and we cannot, we must not,  go through it alone.  We need a torch bearer, a man to take us through our worst, so we may some day see our best again.  Take it and use it Mr. President, 8 years is short, please make the most of it.

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts

Texas…a failed conservative experiment

update 10/26: A link to this article was featured on Senator Shapleigh’s Coffee with Eliot

update: From the mouth of Governor Perry when asked how Texas is, “recession proof”…

“We’re in one?…But seriously, the fact is because we have positioned ourselves so well economically, we’re going to be the first state that starts showing that major recovery and the rest of the states will follow us out of it whenever that is going to be.”

My family moved down to Dallas a few years ago from New York.  To my early surprise, Dallas was a progressive urban sprawl city that seemed like it was expanding on a daily basis.  The mixture of young professional, Mexican, Tejano, gay, and cowboy culture made for a city that should lead the way for the rest of the state.  But when you dig deeper, and pull back the, “facade of progress,” Texas is no more than a failed attempt at creating a ideologically conservative state.                                                                                                   

Over the last few months, Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry has been ranting and raving about the potential for Texas seceding from the union.  He has been prophetically calling for the importance of, “states rights,” which for many, have recalled memories of anti-segregation speech during the Civil Rights Era.  And recently, when Gov. Perry was asked about the terrible problems facing his state, and the effect of the recession on Texans, he responded by questioning that there even was a recession.  The leadership of the state is not only delusional, it is dangerous, and Texas is slowly sinking into irrevocable damage.

A Texas State Senator from El Paso, Eliot Shapleigh, over the last few years, has run series of reports on the state of Texas entitled, “Texas on the Brink” (google doc). In this post, I will present some of the striking statistics about Texas, and how the leadership and failed policies have left it’s citizens in a worse position than another other state in the country.  I will go back to his article throughout this piece, it is an important article, not only for Texans.

Senator Shapleigh writes in his introduction…

From humble beginnings, we built a state with the firm belief that every Texan might rise as high and as far as their spirit, hard work, and talent might carry them.  With education and determination every Texan might achieve great success – home ownership, reliable healthcare, safe neighborhoods, and financial prosperity.

In Texas today, the American dream is distant.  Texans have the highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation.  Texas is dead last in the percentage of residents with their high school diploma near last in SAT scores.  Texas now has America’s dirtiest air.  If we do not change course, for the first time in our history, the Texas generation of tomorrow will be less prosperous than the generation of today.

The Senator’s first paragraph is a great definition of what it means to be conservative.  Through hard work and perseverance, the American dream can be achieved by almost anyone.  It sounds like a beautiful dream, simple in its explanation it is, but nearly impossible in its application.  Texas has relied on its citizens to pull themselves up by their bootstraps without giving them the aid its residents need.  Let’s first look at at State Taxes (note: there is no state income tax in Texas)…

Tax Revenue Raised Per Capita = 49th

Tax Expenditures Per Capita = 50th

Sales Tax Per Capita = 22nd

Progressivity of Tax Revenues = 44th

Texas is listed as one of the states with the most regressive tax system in the country.  As Senator Shapleigh notes, a 2003 report revealed that Texas requires that those families that are in the bottom 20% in income must pay 3 times the share of their personal earnings than the wealthiest 1%.  Not only that, but in terms of sales tax, the same applies to the lower 20th percentile, compared to the top 20th percentile.  The poor are punished for being poor, while the rich thrive, this is the Texas way, and it has left many outsiders questioning their government officials motives.

The Educational system in Texas would be a hilarious story of incompetence, if only real life children weren’t suffering through it.  First, it is important to note that Texas has the second highest public school enrollment in the country, so the quality of its public education is crucial for the growth of future Texans.  Here are some stats from the Senator…

Average Teacher Salary as a % of Avg Annual Pay = 49th

Current Expenditures Per Student = 44th

State Aid Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance = 47th

% of Elementary/Secondary…Funding from State Revenue = 47th

% of Population 25 and Older With a [HS] Diploma = 50th

High School Graduation Rate = 41st

Enrollment Rates in  Higher Education = 39th

Per Capita State Spending on State Arts Agencies = 47th

These stats make it clear that even though Texas has a plethora of students that are their responsibility, the state refuses to put money into their educational system.  It starts at the elementary level, and it expands to the collegiate level, the money is non-existent, and the results have shown that Texas is one of the most uneducated states in the nation.  The Senator also notes the, “gap in funding between high-poverty and low-poverty school districts widened between 2000 and 2006.”  The State then clearly realizes the problems they are in, and have decided to strip even more funding away from low-poverty schools.  As a result, test scores for minorities and low-income families have fallen steadily (below the national average).  This has lead to even higher drop-out rates for Hispanic students, which make up a huge portion of the current and growing population.

The problems continue to get worse in regards to higher education.  The Senator says that, “only 26 percent of the population aged 25-64 has a bachelor’s degree or higher.”  Coming out of the Texas public school system into the collegiate system has proved difficult for students.  “50 percent of college freshman in Texas are enrolled in remedial or development classes, compared to 28 percent across the U.S.”  Therefore, students are behind right from the beginning, and are put in a hole that they must dig themselves out of through hard work and perseverance, right?  One would think, conservative or not, that the state should spend the money to aid families financially to pursue higher education.   The more college educated Texans there are, the better, right?  Well, “Texas funds only 32 percent of need-based financial aid, as opposed to 89 percent by the top-inventing states.”  As the price of college has increased across the state and the nation, Texas is funding less and less qualified low income students with financial aid, a sad fact.  As a result, Texas students have had to borrow twice as much in loans as compared to the national average.  With all of the universities and colleges in the state, the Senator notes that according the the well respected US News and World Reports, only UT Austin, and Texas A&M made it into the top 100 (47 and 64 respectively).  If you dig even deeper into the stats, it’s clear that minorities are dropping out, and graduating at a strikingly lower rate than white students…it all starts in elementary school, where the funding has been cut for minority laden schools.

**Sorry for the length of this post, but I can’t help but touch on as many problems as I can.  I’m embarrassed I live there, I need to vent.

Now, onto the state of children in Texas.  Children are the future, we need to leave for them a state and country better than the one we lived in, this is what we always hear.  So if any state in the country, the state with the 2nd highest birth rate, and the state that has the 2nd highest percentage of their population under 18, Texas should be the shining example in how to protect and serve children…

Percentage of Uninsured Children = 1st

Percentage of Children Living in Poverty = 7th

Percentage of Children Fully Immunized = 36th

Percentage of Children Overweight = 5th

Texas children are poor, fat, exposed to treatable diseases, and can’t be effectively treated for illness.  And the birth rate is growing at almost an unsustainable rate, yet the state has not stepped up to help control the gap between care and wealth.

The Senator notes that a staggering, “86 percent of children whose parents did not have a high school degree live in low-income families, compared to 27 percent of children whose parents had some college education.”  Yet Texas has cut funding to low-income schools, cut financial aid for college for low-income students, and has continued to watch standardized test scores sit below the national average for years.

Conservatives profess their belief in the family structure, and preserving its righteousness.  Yet in Texas, “46 percent of children in low-income families live with a single parent,” and the numbers are even higher for minority families.  How does the state help these families?  Sad, but predicable, “the maximum Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grant for a family of three with no income is $213 per month in Texas, ranking 48th amongst the states.”  It is pretty obvious that Texas is the laziest state in the country, and these low-income families do not deserve to get state funding, eh?  Conservatism in action, and look at the results.  Texas is 46th in the country in child well-being, and has earned an “F” grade from the March of Dimes, due to 1 in 7 babies being born prematurely according to the Senator.  And it will only get worse and worse.

Texas, a state built on pride and self-reliance, you would think that they would treat their women with respect.  This may shock you.

Teenage Birth Rate = 1st

Percentage of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance = 50th

Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms = 42nd

Rate of Women Aged 18+ Who Receive Pap Smears = 46th

Cervical Cancer Rate = 6th

Family Planning = 45th

Women’s Voter Turnout = 49th

Percentage of Women Living in Poverty = 3rd

Yes, women are treated like lower class citizens in Texas, and are mostly stripped of any voice in the government.  The Senator notes that, “In 2008, only seven women in Texas are elected to the 27 statewide offices, and only four are elected to the 34 offices representing Texas in the U.S. Congress.”  The differences in the treatment and equality of minority women as compared to white men and women is remarkable.  They get sicker, they receive less care, have a lower level of education, do not work in managerial positions, yet they continue to have children that are unhealthy and it will continue to be that way.  Yet the state sits by idly, waiting for its Texans to start motivating themselves to get out of the gutter!

Reliance on little government intervention capitalism and strong conservatism go hand in hand.  Let’s see how this approach has helped Texas…

Percent of Mortgage Loans that are Sub prime = 8th

Percent of Households with Interest-Bearing Accounts = 41st

Private Loans to Small Businesses = 43rd

Level of Asset Poverty = 43rd

Amount of Money that Banks Located in the State Collect through Deposits in Relation to the Amount of Money the Banks Re-channel Back into Communities Through Loans = 45th

Average Credit Score = 50th

Texas has been hit hard by the incompetence of the sub prime mortgage fiasco, yet the state has done very little to aid these families.  Small businesses suffer due to the lack of a “kick start” that many governments and banks give potentially successful businesses.  Therefore, Texans are left to spend what little money they have, and rely on credit to, “dig themselves out of poverty.”  As a result, our credit scores are an embarrassing last in the country, and as we all know, it’s almost impossible to accumulate wealth with a poor credit score.

Texas is oil, and throughout it’s history, people have moved from all over the country to try and reap the benefits from the states natural gift.  I don’t have any numbers on this, but from my experience, Texas is flooded with more trucks and SUV’s than I have ever seen in my life.  Yet the sad part, is that size is flaunted in Texas, the bigger the truck, the prouder and more respect one gets.  Size is power, and as a result, Texas is poisoning it’s population with it’s emissions.

Air Pollution Emissions = 1st

Amount of [VOC's] Released into Air = 1st

Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Water = 1st

Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Air = 1st

Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated = 2nd

Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions = 1st

It’s a frightening situation when the more harm the environment causes to the populations health correlates directly with the lack of quality, accessible health care.  I wonder where Texas will side on the upcoming debate on Climate Change?  If you missed the sarcasm, I can guarantee that they will argue for maintaining the status quo, even though the facts are clearly laid out before their representatives eyes that the state is a cancer trap.

What is truly amazing is that, as the Senator notes, “if Texas were a country, it would have the tenth largest economy in the world.  Currently, Texas has the second largest economy in the nation with a [GDP] of $1.142 trillion for 2007.”  However, the average personal per capita income is only $35,000, and 21.5% of Texans live in poverty.  The gap between the rich and the poor is archaic to say the least…(paraphrased)

Richest 20% of families have avg incomes 7.9 larger than poorest 20% and 2.8 times larer than middle 20%

From the late 1980s to the mid-2000s, the avg income of the poorest 20% has increased $2,657…the middle 20% has increased $4,528.

…the average income of the richest 20% increased $32,813 [in that 20 year span]

The rich continue to get richer, while the middle and lower class have remained fairly stagnant in their income over the last 20 years.  Conservatives must be shocked at how ignorant millions and millions of Texans are.  They have been waiting 20 years for government hand outs, don’t they realize it’s not coming?  It’s clear the poor, and the minorities are deficient, and naturally less successful and than rich whites.  How did they all end up in Texas and why isn’t this happening to other states?  Turing a blind eye to the problems, a conservative flaw that has left Texas in a dismal state.

With a state that has as high an influx of children as any other, Texas is trying to keep their overall population numbers down by giving the worst possible care to the elderly as possible.  Texas’s death panels are known as nursing homes, I know…it’s a little ironic right winger nutters…

A 2002 report found that 86% of nursing homes in Texas did not meet federal standards governing quality of care, 94% of nursing homes did not meet minimum staffing levels, and 39% of facilities had a violation that caused actual harm to nursing home residents or placed them at risk for death or serious injury.

The average nursing home in Texas provided just 21 minutes of daily care by registered nurses for each resident, or less than half of the minimum required by federal standards.

The moral of this story?  Whatever you do, don’t send your grandmother to a nursing home in Texas.  There’s only one way she will be getting out of there alive, and that’s if you take her back home.  What does the future hold for the elderly in Texas?  Senator Shapleigh enlightens us.  “The population in Texas that is over 65 years of age will be expected to grow from 2.1 to 7.4 million, or 258%, by 2040.”  If you’re getting old, move.  Move.  Move.  Move.  Move.

The moment now we have all been waiting for, the state of the health care system in Texas.  Something to remember, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchinson, Republicans from Texas, both have stated that they will vote against the current health care reform bill, and do not support the creation of a public health insurance option to compete with the private industry, or allowing all Americans the opportunity to buy into Medicare.

Percentage of Population Uninsured = 1st

Percentage of Non-Elderly Uninsured = 1st

Percentage of Low Income Covered by Medicaid = 42nd

Percentage…with employer Based Health Insurance = 46th

Total State Government Health Expenditures as Percent of the GSP = 33rd

Per Capita State Spending on Mental Health = 48th

Percentage of Population Physically Active = 41st

Physicians – 43rd

Dentists = 42nd

Registered Nurses = 43rd

You may be asking yourself, why do so few people buy into Medicaid.  Well, the Senator tells us that, “Texas does not provide Medicaid to parents making even poverty-line incomes; therefore, a working parent of two does not quality for coverage if he or she makes more than $4,824 in a year.”

You could say that Texas, a state with the 10th largest GDP in the world, treats its citizens health like they are a third world nation.  The Health Care situation is reaching a breaking point across the nation, yet Texas already has a broken system, but its elected officials refuse to vote for reform that will start the healing process.

Finally, one last segment to talk about.  For a educational system that professes Creationism as a valid theory of evolution, and is thinking about rewriting their text books so that they will remove Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez as important parts of history, and basically become a mouth piece for a conservative version of our nations history, the fact that they teach abstinence should not surprise anyone.  But where has abstinence only programs got the state?

2005, the birth rate for ages 15-19 was 61.6 per 1000, compared to 40.5 in the U.S.

2001 statewide survey of Texas high school students, almost half had engaged in sexual intercourse at least once. (37.4% of 9th graders)

Among currently sexually active students, only about half reported that they or their partner had used a condom…Only 10% reported that they or their partner used birth control pills.

22.6% of sexually active students had used drugs or alcohol at the time of their last sexual intercourse.

I will not even go into what the states sex education consists of, or the abortion rates, or anything like that, but you can imagine the type of advice these children get.

In Texas, the state has followed conservative ideology, and has kept it’s hands off its citizens.  It has stayed true to its roots where the American Dream is possible if you put your heart and soul into it.  And when problems started to grow, the state continued to stubbornly remain true to its principles.  Now, the state has failed, and is falling head first into tragedy.  Yet Governor Perry believes that there has been no recession, its Senators do not want to reform Health Care, and elected officials want to rewrite the text books to glorify Conservative icons.  Texas is run by twisted, delusional, and incompetent officials, that put their faith in god and conservatism to raise them out of the depths.  Wake up Texas.  It’s time for the government to get their hands dirty and start helping your population get out of this crisis.  Stop pandering to the rich, and start acknowledging your poor.  Secession Governor Perry?  You need the federal government more than any state in the nation, realize it, accept it, and start doing your job.

Once again, thanks to Senator Eliot Shapleigh and his important report, “Texas on the Brink, 2009.”

Filed under: Theoretical Thoughts