I have been happily bustling around in "mom mode" lately. The weather is gorgeous, and there is enough chill in the air that the house is starting to smell like a spice rack. Pumpkin. Pumpkin. Pumpkin. Pumpkin scones. Pumpkin cream cheese muffins. Pumpkin pancakes (with caramel syrup). I LOVE October. I've sort of cleaned up the back yard, so it does not look as much like the aftermath of last years forty freezes - ok, there were only five, but they were hard freezes and all right in a row. I kept waiting for the hisbiscus to come back, but it never happened, and I have finally faced up to some of the losses that I was hoping weren't real.
The upside to all of that is this weekend's annual fall plant sale at USF. Yay. I will actually have fresh herbs to cook with again. Lemon Balm tea cookies in the very near future. We even had a fire and roasted s'mores last weekend.
The girl child is in the middle of a very intense school project. I will not rant about puppy mills yet. When her presentation is done, we will post on YouTube. We have spent the last week inundated with some of the saddest images and stories I have ever seen. She is very dedicated to this project, and what little I've seen of it is VERY good. We spent Saturday at the saddest place on earth (the local pound), getting lots of footage. Then I went with the girls while they interviewed a woman that has been involved in several puppy mill rescues. Lots to learn. Kind of shocking how cruel and insensitive people can be.
Work is FINALLY starting to speed up. I was almost considering a full time placement again (ugh). Now I'm back to happily working my 5 jobs. Only two of them are actually giving me patients right now, but I have options, and enough patients to keep me mostly out of trouble.
I'm hoping to pick up the 2011 Wild Child Pics Calendars today. If so, the pre-orders will be out in the mail by Monday. Go Photo Girl!
Friday, October 8, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Poverty and Posturing
This going to be convoluted, as my thoughts on the subject are still not set. Recently an article was floating around face book from a young doctor on a rant about the cultural problems with health care/poverty in the United States. I googled him, to find a more stable link to refer to and the first up was Snopes.com, proving that yes, indeed, this letter is attributed appropriately to Dr. Starner Jones. Not that it matters in anyway who wrote this. From the comments I saw - the FB world is largely in agreement, and the lone dissenting voice was berated for his bleeding heart.
I agree with Dr. Jones, that it is a cultural problem. He points out one example of a young woman in expensive clothes with an expensive phone, with expensive vices, that is on Medicaid, and how our culture encourages these people to live off the system, and not take care of themselves. In FB many healthcare providers jumped in on the rant. Many examples. All of them about how these people have no respect for our hard earned monies. One dentist talked about a medicaid patient that put out $2,000 cash for a gold grill for his teeth. Deplorable. Despicable.
Let's tackle the expensive vice problem first. Alcohol, tobacco, and drug use are not only the vices of the very poor. These are horribly expensive, very damaging habits that cross all lines of socioeconomic status. I did not see a single rant from healthcare providers that have to care for older COPD patients (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a basket term for all the things that slowly kill the lungs of smokers) on Medicare. This is expensive, largely self-inflicted, and covered by - oh no - don't say it - a Government Sponsored Insurance program - one that your grandma is probably on, one that is paying for the cost of my Mother's lung cancer and COPD care, one that my tax dollars pay for. For those that don't have Medicare yet, but have insurance, these bad-vice related problems are paid for from ever-increasing cost of insurance premiums. It is illegal for the insurance company to charge you more because you are a smoker and drink like a fish, so to cover the cost of your health care, they raise my premiums, and everyone else's. Darn smokers - I'm paying for the poor through Medicaid, the old through Medicare, and everyone else by out of control, crazy high insurance premiums. I DON'T SMOKE.
And Fast Food. How can these people eat that artery clogging, blood pressure elevating drek day after day? Because it is cheap. And convenient. And advertised to be nutritious. And buying, cooking and cleaning fresh, healthy food is expensive. It requires time, and education. A lot of my middle class, insurance packing friends, deplore the "fast food" culture while fixing sodium heavy, fat filled, chemically enhanced pre-packaged, expensive "meals" for their families. Of course, they don't walk 3 blocks to the bus stop, take 2 buses and 45 minutes to get to the grocery store that is barely 2 miles away, haul all the groceries you can carry back, then stuff them into the little tiny refrigerator/freezer, then prepare them. It is way easier to hit the McDonald's on the corner. And there is one. On every corner.
Yes, but what about those spendthrift "poor," using my money to fix they're sniffly noses while talking away on their expensive cell phones. Don't I get to rant about that?
I think most of the people that were commenting on the article in FB were gainfully employed, and most likely have employee sponsored healthcare. I'm assuming. Never a good premise for an argument - but as it is my blog, I get to create my antagonists in whatever image I choose. Even if you see the money coming out of your check, it is difficult to really understand the costs associated with insurance in this country. My husband and I pay for insurance. We found the best plan that we could afford, based on what was important to us. We are relatively healthy. So we really need emergency care, and follow up care for any such emergency. We have a $7,500 deductible, which means for non-emergencies, we pay everything, every year, up to $7,500/per person. To put it bluntly, we pay over $500/month for a family of four for the security of knowing that if I slip off a ladder and hurt myself, we are not going to have $30,000 in medical bills to deal with while I am out of work. We still pay for all doctor visits and testing out of pocket. We still only go to the doctor if death is imminent. Our last insurance plan had "well care," so we did not have to pay for healthy check-ups, but the premiums were almost $200/month more.
So lets take this into the world of those slacker "poor." The thing with insurance, is that you have to pay for it. Consistently. There are no allowances for people that are late on payments, you don't pay, you aren't covered. People with unreliable incomes, even if they are working a little, are not going to be able to budget $500/month for a healthcare plan that is not in anyway helpful to them if they get a flu or sprain an ankle. I have been very poor. When you struggle for every little thing, trying to pay your bills, put food on the table, etc. those rare instances of "found money," you know, when money appears that is not in your budget - the extra check 2x year when you budget for 2 checks a month, winning $50 from a scratch off lottery ticket - that extra money is a little mini vacation. Yeah - you could put it away to pay for 1/2 of your kid's next doctor's visit - but how are you going to come up with the other half? or you could spend it on those cool shoes you've been wanting. What the heck - I deserve a little somethin' somethin' for working so hard feeding all these kids, wipin' these snotty noses, picking up after that drunkin' man. I'm gettin' me those shoes. or Whatever. The one thing we know is that the money is not consistent, and saving it for 3 months, to hope to get enough money to pay for one month of insurance, that won't even pay for a doctor's visit is not an option.
I still agree that this is a cultural problem, but it is bigger, more pervasive, and subtle than my usual rant against the entitlement culture that is being showcased here. The biggest problem that I see is largely the blame of the middle class. We are a society that lives beyond our means and outside of our budgets because we love and value status. We live in America, where everyone is equal. Our kids go to school and everyone is carrying Vera Bradley bags, cool cell phones, designer clothes. We can't afford to keep up with all of that, so we buy on credit cards, shift things around, figure it out, because it is IMPORTANT. Different families have different ways of working it out. Some people work themselves to burn out with multiple jobs, in this economy, that is very hard, finding one job is sometimes a struggle. Some go into deeper debt on credit cards, take advantage of the reduced interest rate and slow foreclosure rules from the banks, hoping things will get better before they lose the house. Some turn to older, more fiscally responsible family members. I actually know a family that made sure that all four of their kids had the iPhone when it first came out. Not something I would condone even if I could afford it. This family was consistently borrowing from the grandparents to pay mortgage. Of course, their dirty little secret didn't end up in a medical record to be ridiculed on face book.
So when the very poor take steps to look like everyone else - this is America, we are entitled to equality - we jump all over them because we have to foot the bill for their healthcare. If we weren't doing that, we wouldn't have to go so far into debt to look like people that are significantly better off than we are. This is a significant cultural issue. We live in a society that values "image" above basic health. Do not think for a minute that this is a cultural crime of the very poor. If as a society, we valued "people" over "status," we would have fewer Medicaid recipients hanging out in the ER wearing designer jeans, fewer healthcare workers that notice the brands they wear, and we may actually have fewer emergency room visits for things that could have been fixed if we put our money toward healthier living, instead of keeping up with the Montgomery's.
I agree with Dr. Jones, that it is a cultural problem. He points out one example of a young woman in expensive clothes with an expensive phone, with expensive vices, that is on Medicaid, and how our culture encourages these people to live off the system, and not take care of themselves. In FB many healthcare providers jumped in on the rant. Many examples. All of them about how these people have no respect for our hard earned monies. One dentist talked about a medicaid patient that put out $2,000 cash for a gold grill for his teeth. Deplorable. Despicable.
Let's tackle the expensive vice problem first. Alcohol, tobacco, and drug use are not only the vices of the very poor. These are horribly expensive, very damaging habits that cross all lines of socioeconomic status. I did not see a single rant from healthcare providers that have to care for older COPD patients (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a basket term for all the things that slowly kill the lungs of smokers) on Medicare. This is expensive, largely self-inflicted, and covered by - oh no - don't say it - a Government Sponsored Insurance program - one that your grandma is probably on, one that is paying for the cost of my Mother's lung cancer and COPD care, one that my tax dollars pay for. For those that don't have Medicare yet, but have insurance, these bad-vice related problems are paid for from ever-increasing cost of insurance premiums. It is illegal for the insurance company to charge you more because you are a smoker and drink like a fish, so to cover the cost of your health care, they raise my premiums, and everyone else's. Darn smokers - I'm paying for the poor through Medicaid, the old through Medicare, and everyone else by out of control, crazy high insurance premiums. I DON'T SMOKE.
And Fast Food. How can these people eat that artery clogging, blood pressure elevating drek day after day? Because it is cheap. And convenient. And advertised to be nutritious. And buying, cooking and cleaning fresh, healthy food is expensive. It requires time, and education. A lot of my middle class, insurance packing friends, deplore the "fast food" culture while fixing sodium heavy, fat filled, chemically enhanced pre-packaged, expensive "meals" for their families. Of course, they don't walk 3 blocks to the bus stop, take 2 buses and 45 minutes to get to the grocery store that is barely 2 miles away, haul all the groceries you can carry back, then stuff them into the little tiny refrigerator/freezer, then prepare them. It is way easier to hit the McDonald's on the corner. And there is one. On every corner.
Yes, but what about those spendthrift "poor," using my money to fix they're sniffly noses while talking away on their expensive cell phones. Don't I get to rant about that?
I think most of the people that were commenting on the article in FB were gainfully employed, and most likely have employee sponsored healthcare. I'm assuming. Never a good premise for an argument - but as it is my blog, I get to create my antagonists in whatever image I choose. Even if you see the money coming out of your check, it is difficult to really understand the costs associated with insurance in this country. My husband and I pay for insurance. We found the best plan that we could afford, based on what was important to us. We are relatively healthy. So we really need emergency care, and follow up care for any such emergency. We have a $7,500 deductible, which means for non-emergencies, we pay everything, every year, up to $7,500/per person. To put it bluntly, we pay over $500/month for a family of four for the security of knowing that if I slip off a ladder and hurt myself, we are not going to have $30,000 in medical bills to deal with while I am out of work. We still pay for all doctor visits and testing out of pocket. We still only go to the doctor if death is imminent. Our last insurance plan had "well care," so we did not have to pay for healthy check-ups, but the premiums were almost $200/month more.
So lets take this into the world of those slacker "poor." The thing with insurance, is that you have to pay for it. Consistently. There are no allowances for people that are late on payments, you don't pay, you aren't covered. People with unreliable incomes, even if they are working a little, are not going to be able to budget $500/month for a healthcare plan that is not in anyway helpful to them if they get a flu or sprain an ankle. I have been very poor. When you struggle for every little thing, trying to pay your bills, put food on the table, etc. those rare instances of "found money," you know, when money appears that is not in your budget - the extra check 2x year when you budget for 2 checks a month, winning $50 from a scratch off lottery ticket - that extra money is a little mini vacation. Yeah - you could put it away to pay for 1/2 of your kid's next doctor's visit - but how are you going to come up with the other half? or you could spend it on those cool shoes you've been wanting. What the heck - I deserve a little somethin' somethin' for working so hard feeding all these kids, wipin' these snotty noses, picking up after that drunkin' man. I'm gettin' me those shoes. or Whatever. The one thing we know is that the money is not consistent, and saving it for 3 months, to hope to get enough money to pay for one month of insurance, that won't even pay for a doctor's visit is not an option.
I still agree that this is a cultural problem, but it is bigger, more pervasive, and subtle than my usual rant against the entitlement culture that is being showcased here. The biggest problem that I see is largely the blame of the middle class. We are a society that lives beyond our means and outside of our budgets because we love and value status. We live in America, where everyone is equal. Our kids go to school and everyone is carrying Vera Bradley bags, cool cell phones, designer clothes. We can't afford to keep up with all of that, so we buy on credit cards, shift things around, figure it out, because it is IMPORTANT. Different families have different ways of working it out. Some people work themselves to burn out with multiple jobs, in this economy, that is very hard, finding one job is sometimes a struggle. Some go into deeper debt on credit cards, take advantage of the reduced interest rate and slow foreclosure rules from the banks, hoping things will get better before they lose the house. Some turn to older, more fiscally responsible family members. I actually know a family that made sure that all four of their kids had the iPhone when it first came out. Not something I would condone even if I could afford it. This family was consistently borrowing from the grandparents to pay mortgage. Of course, their dirty little secret didn't end up in a medical record to be ridiculed on face book.
So when the very poor take steps to look like everyone else - this is America, we are entitled to equality - we jump all over them because we have to foot the bill for their healthcare. If we weren't doing that, we wouldn't have to go so far into debt to look like people that are significantly better off than we are. This is a significant cultural issue. We live in a society that values "image" above basic health. Do not think for a minute that this is a cultural crime of the very poor. If as a society, we valued "people" over "status," we would have fewer Medicaid recipients hanging out in the ER wearing designer jeans, fewer healthcare workers that notice the brands they wear, and we may actually have fewer emergency room visits for things that could have been fixed if we put our money toward healthier living, instead of keeping up with the Montgomery's.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Bearing Arms
As my daughter approaches her 13th birthday, I realize that there are some core family experiences that I have unintentionally denied my daughter. Things that were so common in my life, that I am horrified to think that she is nearly a teen-ager and she has not yet faced responsibilities that were common-place to me at a much younger age. She has cooked meals, but will not even touch raw meat - kind of goes without saying that she has not plucked a chicken, or milked a cow. What really rankles my family values, and puts her behind the curve of the kids of my childhood friends?
She has never shot a gun.
I had my hunter's safety permit at the age of 8, had already started shooting a little before that. I own the little bolt action, single shot .22 rifle that everyone in my family learned to shoot with. Dad learned at the age of 6. When we moved to the farm, we kept a loaded shotgun at every door of the house. My mom was determined that no predators would get her "babies." This is a weird dynamic, as "predators" included raccoons and owls and hawks. I can no longer conceive a place in my head wear shooting a hawk is OK, but we are talking about my childhood environs. By the age of 10, I was not allowed to go for long walks without a gun and a dog. Our chickens ran loose on 80 acres of land, sometimes Mom would gather them from their roosts at night, but more often, butchering day was also target practice. We knew which young roosters were on the block for the day, and we set out with our 22 rifles, the only rule was that it had to be a head shot.
It wasn't that my family was "fringe," everyone I knew hunted. I did not know that gun racks were not standard in pick-ups until I moved to Florida. Opening day of hunting season was a school holiday, no one, kids or teachers, were going to show up anyway. And during deer season, almost everyone brought guns to school so they did not have to run home before heading to the woods. I'm not much of a hunter; not that I am opposed. I honestly feel that a quick end to a wild life, with no waste of the animal's parts is better for the animal, and the human consumer, than the horrible way we industrialize meat in this country - but that is another rant. I am way too antsy, noisy to be good on a stand, and not a good enough shot to hunt while "pushing." But, in my world, hiking was a rare phenomenon, and hunting was a socially acceptable way to get out in nature.
Then I moved to the south. I went hunting once. Completely different - I had never used a shotgun for deer before. Out west we had long range rifles, lots of open country, and clear views of anything we were pointing at. In the south, we have thick woods, low visibility, and crazy rednecks shooting at noises. OK - I realize that all parts of the country have crazy drunk rednecks shooting at noises, but my dad ran a very tight camp. No body drank until the guns were put away, and no one pulled a trigger without a clear head shot, anything else was a waste of meat.
Now we get into the arms debate. Having spent most of my adult life in a "big city," I get a lot of the fear around guns. I also feel that much of that fear is media and politics driven. Our founding fathers did not put the 2nd amendment in as an after thought. I do not believe that a couple of centuries ago the New World was an Utopian society of no violence. In fact, I would hazard to guess that violence was more prevalent, and more personal. Oftentimes, the pro-arms camp talk about self-protection. What if my family is threatened by a home invasion? I must protect myself. This is an important argument. But the key reason we have the 2nd amendment is to stand as a populace militia against the dictatorial rule of a hostile government. Wow, pop that one around a few NRA conventions and they might lose the political support that they have.
But aren't guns dangerous? of course they are. But so are cars, and boats, and hammers and power tools, and the way I use scissors. So why the big debate? We have a moderately dangerous tool, with constitutional backing, and it is a constant freak session of rant on both sides. Why? It is the emotional element. The romanticizing of gun related tragedies. Accidental death, poetic suicide (The Highway Man comes to mind), heartless murder, mass killings. All of these things have happened with other tools, but none have the emotional impact of gun-related violence. In these incidences we blame the gun almost as much as the killer. It is never the poison's fault, or the bomb's, or the hammer's.
Very few people question the right of anyone to own a car. Can't drive one without a license. License indicates education, some level of competency, and in Florida, you have to have insurance. It is along these lines that make me fairly comfortable with most of the gun control laws. I've been in the woods with idiots, it would be nice to know there was training involved. I don't think we need more laws. I think we need more education. Teaching Gun Safety in schools would be my favorite option. I can't imagine that I would get any political backing, but seriously, if you want people to understand something, respect it, and treat it properly, registration and punishment are not nearly as effective as good old-fashioned training. I would love to see the media handle gun-related violence like all other forms. Yes, mention that a gun was used, but don't do a million back stories on gun violence, gun control debates, and unrelated tragedies, just report the facts.
What about the whole licensing for use idea? I did compare gun use with car use - and we all think licensing is great for cars. This gets sticky. We have a constitutional RIGHT to own guns - and walk around with them for that matter, but I'm really not condoning that. I think that licensing is an invasion on the essence of this amendment. We have the right to pursue domestic tranquility - but no one is seeking licensure for happiness. When something is a Right, it needs to be accessible to all, without yards of red tape and coughing up personal information. In my opinion, we are back to the education thing. More information, fewer mistakes. And oh - yeah - personal responsibility, we need lots of that. I have no problem with harsh penalties for crimes involving guns. We have a right to keep them, not threaten or kill innocent people with them.
I use to be against hand guns. Not politically, just personally. The only real use for a hand gun is shooting people (or hog hunting, but I did not know that then), and I was really uncomfortable with that. Then I spent my first weekend of school in Miami right after Andrew. I had my concealed weapons permit and first handgun (a Walther PPK .380, if your interested) by the end of the month. That gun was by my side, loaded and ready, everytime I drove anywhere alone at night in Miami. Once I was done with school, I let the permit lapse, and haven't even taken it apart and cleaned it in 13 years.
I still have no use for, and am a little freaked out by the assault weapons collection phenomenon. The people I know that have them are occasionally on a political fringe, but are completely careful about the safety, maintenance and use of their guns. If any of these people go on a spree, it will not be an accident; but, it will be significantly less messy than a car bomb. Remember that the political and constitutional reason for allowing these people to keep their guns are to prepare for an event that most of us cannot if imagine as reality. Of course, every time we get a political regime change, a different group of people imagine it vividly and loudly.
So what to do about the horrible mom dilemma? I am personally little rusty on the mechanics, and very particular about who I would allow to take my daughter out shooting, and frankly wouldn't even know where to take her. I friend of mine, a collector and expert marksman, has offered - its just a matter of getting her over to the other side of the state. And she is pretty excited about it - just to have the experience, and understanding, and lose some of that morbid fascination and fear that our society builds up over the issue. I keep thinking when I am home I should drag my brother off to the woods with the appropriate guns. Or my sister, who is probably the best shot in the family. It will happen, just not sure when.
She has never shot a gun.
I had my hunter's safety permit at the age of 8, had already started shooting a little before that. I own the little bolt action, single shot .22 rifle that everyone in my family learned to shoot with. Dad learned at the age of 6. When we moved to the farm, we kept a loaded shotgun at every door of the house. My mom was determined that no predators would get her "babies." This is a weird dynamic, as "predators" included raccoons and owls and hawks. I can no longer conceive a place in my head wear shooting a hawk is OK, but we are talking about my childhood environs. By the age of 10, I was not allowed to go for long walks without a gun and a dog. Our chickens ran loose on 80 acres of land, sometimes Mom would gather them from their roosts at night, but more often, butchering day was also target practice. We knew which young roosters were on the block for the day, and we set out with our 22 rifles, the only rule was that it had to be a head shot.
It wasn't that my family was "fringe," everyone I knew hunted. I did not know that gun racks were not standard in pick-ups until I moved to Florida. Opening day of hunting season was a school holiday, no one, kids or teachers, were going to show up anyway. And during deer season, almost everyone brought guns to school so they did not have to run home before heading to the woods. I'm not much of a hunter; not that I am opposed. I honestly feel that a quick end to a wild life, with no waste of the animal's parts is better for the animal, and the human consumer, than the horrible way we industrialize meat in this country - but that is another rant. I am way too antsy, noisy to be good on a stand, and not a good enough shot to hunt while "pushing." But, in my world, hiking was a rare phenomenon, and hunting was a socially acceptable way to get out in nature.
Then I moved to the south. I went hunting once. Completely different - I had never used a shotgun for deer before. Out west we had long range rifles, lots of open country, and clear views of anything we were pointing at. In the south, we have thick woods, low visibility, and crazy rednecks shooting at noises. OK - I realize that all parts of the country have crazy drunk rednecks shooting at noises, but my dad ran a very tight camp. No body drank until the guns were put away, and no one pulled a trigger without a clear head shot, anything else was a waste of meat.
Now we get into the arms debate. Having spent most of my adult life in a "big city," I get a lot of the fear around guns. I also feel that much of that fear is media and politics driven. Our founding fathers did not put the 2nd amendment in as an after thought. I do not believe that a couple of centuries ago the New World was an Utopian society of no violence. In fact, I would hazard to guess that violence was more prevalent, and more personal. Oftentimes, the pro-arms camp talk about self-protection. What if my family is threatened by a home invasion? I must protect myself. This is an important argument. But the key reason we have the 2nd amendment is to stand as a populace militia against the dictatorial rule of a hostile government. Wow, pop that one around a few NRA conventions and they might lose the political support that they have.
But aren't guns dangerous? of course they are. But so are cars, and boats, and hammers and power tools, and the way I use scissors. So why the big debate? We have a moderately dangerous tool, with constitutional backing, and it is a constant freak session of rant on both sides. Why? It is the emotional element. The romanticizing of gun related tragedies. Accidental death, poetic suicide (The Highway Man comes to mind), heartless murder, mass killings. All of these things have happened with other tools, but none have the emotional impact of gun-related violence. In these incidences we blame the gun almost as much as the killer. It is never the poison's fault, or the bomb's, or the hammer's.
Very few people question the right of anyone to own a car. Can't drive one without a license. License indicates education, some level of competency, and in Florida, you have to have insurance. It is along these lines that make me fairly comfortable with most of the gun control laws. I've been in the woods with idiots, it would be nice to know there was training involved. I don't think we need more laws. I think we need more education. Teaching Gun Safety in schools would be my favorite option. I can't imagine that I would get any political backing, but seriously, if you want people to understand something, respect it, and treat it properly, registration and punishment are not nearly as effective as good old-fashioned training. I would love to see the media handle gun-related violence like all other forms. Yes, mention that a gun was used, but don't do a million back stories on gun violence, gun control debates, and unrelated tragedies, just report the facts.
What about the whole licensing for use idea? I did compare gun use with car use - and we all think licensing is great for cars. This gets sticky. We have a constitutional RIGHT to own guns - and walk around with them for that matter, but I'm really not condoning that. I think that licensing is an invasion on the essence of this amendment. We have the right to pursue domestic tranquility - but no one is seeking licensure for happiness. When something is a Right, it needs to be accessible to all, without yards of red tape and coughing up personal information. In my opinion, we are back to the education thing. More information, fewer mistakes. And oh - yeah - personal responsibility, we need lots of that. I have no problem with harsh penalties for crimes involving guns. We have a right to keep them, not threaten or kill innocent people with them.
I use to be against hand guns. Not politically, just personally. The only real use for a hand gun is shooting people (or hog hunting, but I did not know that then), and I was really uncomfortable with that. Then I spent my first weekend of school in Miami right after Andrew. I had my concealed weapons permit and first handgun (a Walther PPK .380, if your interested) by the end of the month. That gun was by my side, loaded and ready, everytime I drove anywhere alone at night in Miami. Once I was done with school, I let the permit lapse, and haven't even taken it apart and cleaned it in 13 years.
I still have no use for, and am a little freaked out by the assault weapons collection phenomenon. The people I know that have them are occasionally on a political fringe, but are completely careful about the safety, maintenance and use of their guns. If any of these people go on a spree, it will not be an accident; but, it will be significantly less messy than a car bomb. Remember that the political and constitutional reason for allowing these people to keep their guns are to prepare for an event that most of us cannot if imagine as reality. Of course, every time we get a political regime change, a different group of people imagine it vividly and loudly.
So what to do about the horrible mom dilemma? I am personally little rusty on the mechanics, and very particular about who I would allow to take my daughter out shooting, and frankly wouldn't even know where to take her. I friend of mine, a collector and expert marksman, has offered - its just a matter of getting her over to the other side of the state. And she is pretty excited about it - just to have the experience, and understanding, and lose some of that morbid fascination and fear that our society builds up over the issue. I keep thinking when I am home I should drag my brother off to the woods with the appropriate guns. Or my sister, who is probably the best shot in the family. It will happen, just not sure when.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Mosqued Identity
As we ascend the social ladder, viciousness wears a thicker mask." -
Erich Fromm
I don't subscribe to the local papers, I watch a little BBC, CNN, listen to the radio, check in on my favorite web news site daily. Yesterday on my morning jog with the puppies, I noticed that the Tribune had put out teaser papers along the street to try to get people to subscribe. As I was jogging by I could not help noticing the headline: "Mosque near, not AT Ground Zero." Seriously - it was front page news, with a bold headline. Where, exactly, has the Trib been for the last 2 months? And they still didn't get it right. It is not a Mosque. It is a community center. It is not a multi-billion dollar enterprise being funded by foreign terrorist groups. It is a multi-billion dollar proposal being supported by a community.
This has been one of those things that I watch in the media, abhorred at the crazy rhetoric being bounced around. More than a little shocked at the twisted turn politicians are taking. We're still in America, right? Our political leaders are still bound to uphold the tenets of the constitution, right? Elected officials are to protect the rights of all citizens, right? If none of that has changed - what is going on? How is the transformation of an empty building in Manhattan, in a neighborhood that is full of empty buildings into a community center that will provide a public place for gathering, playing (basketball courts and rec areas planned), and yes, prayer, a political issue? Would we care if it was a Jewish Center? a Mormon Center? a Catholic Center? a non-demonitational Mega Church Center? Baptist? Cavalry? Hindu? Wiccan? - OK, the last one might get some flack.
The World Trade Centers were bombed by a terrorist group that use Islamic fundamental rhetoric to incite mayhem, instill loyalty in their followers and fear in the hearts of non-Muslims world wide. In no way do these people speak, or act, for all Muslims. And they certainly do not speak for Islamic-Americans. Timothy McVey was Catholic, his act of "Home-grown" terrorism did not filter into hatred of all Catholics. I wonder if it would have been different if a foreign, Irish Catholic, terrorist group had master-minded the Oklahoma City bombings? After Pearl Harbor, thousands of innocent Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in detention facilities. Will we not learn from this?
Separation of Church and State is my favorite principal of our constitution - but it is not an amendment. It is wrapped up pretty firmly in the first amendment - you know, the free speech one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The camps screaming that they can speak out against this non-mosque because of the 1st amendment have no concept that they are trampling all over the 1st amendment rights of others. I get that public figures, particularly media pundits have a right, a constitutional right, to speak against this thing. I also get that our constitution allows freedom of all speech, even untruthful speech. If Dr. Laura wants to drop the N-word on a broadcast, and face the wrath of the public and her producers, that is her business; but, when politicians weigh in with venomous words and misleading "facts," we have a very different problem.
Political figures, when acting in their official capacity - which, face it, is anytime they are in public - exercise free speech to voice personal opinion that does not uphold our constitution, I feel like they violate their station, and my trust. Pundits berated Obama for his support of the non-mosque. How could he do anything different? He is the highest elected official in our country - what right has he to any POLITICAL opinion that does not support the founding principals of this great nation? When he later said that he did not necessarily support the construction of this non-mosque, only their RIGHT to move forward, people jumped all over him for being weak. How is that weak? I want politicians that will support my rights, even if they don't share my values
I almost understand the mob-mentality that makes a witch-hunt seem like the only viable option - but will we never learn? We are still scared, and hurting, Almost ten years later, blaming the wrong people have cost us thousands of American lives, and disrupted our integrity as a country. Approximately 10% of the victims of 911 were Muslim-Americans. They are not a grieving community, they are part of our grieving community. Generations of Islamic Americans have enriched our culture and our country. In large and medium sized cities across America these people stand shoulder to shoulder with us. They are Teachers, Coaches, Doctors, Shopkeepers, garbage collectors, active members of our police force and military, ambulance drivers and lab techs. You probably do not know who most of them are - it is not necessarily safe for them to be open about their religion. How sad is it that a country that prides itself on religious freedom has created a culture where your coworker can't feel comfortable starting a conversation about family gatherings at Ramadan while you prattle on about your Christmas dinner?
Erich Fromm
I don't subscribe to the local papers, I watch a little BBC, CNN, listen to the radio, check in on my favorite web news site daily. Yesterday on my morning jog with the puppies, I noticed that the Tribune had put out teaser papers along the street to try to get people to subscribe. As I was jogging by I could not help noticing the headline: "Mosque near, not AT Ground Zero." Seriously - it was front page news, with a bold headline. Where, exactly, has the Trib been for the last 2 months? And they still didn't get it right. It is not a Mosque. It is a community center. It is not a multi-billion dollar enterprise being funded by foreign terrorist groups. It is a multi-billion dollar proposal being supported by a community.
This has been one of those things that I watch in the media, abhorred at the crazy rhetoric being bounced around. More than a little shocked at the twisted turn politicians are taking. We're still in America, right? Our political leaders are still bound to uphold the tenets of the constitution, right? Elected officials are to protect the rights of all citizens, right? If none of that has changed - what is going on? How is the transformation of an empty building in Manhattan, in a neighborhood that is full of empty buildings into a community center that will provide a public place for gathering, playing (basketball courts and rec areas planned), and yes, prayer, a political issue? Would we care if it was a Jewish Center? a Mormon Center? a Catholic Center? a non-demonitational Mega Church Center? Baptist? Cavalry? Hindu? Wiccan? - OK, the last one might get some flack.
The World Trade Centers were bombed by a terrorist group that use Islamic fundamental rhetoric to incite mayhem, instill loyalty in their followers and fear in the hearts of non-Muslims world wide. In no way do these people speak, or act, for all Muslims. And they certainly do not speak for Islamic-Americans. Timothy McVey was Catholic, his act of "Home-grown" terrorism did not filter into hatred of all Catholics. I wonder if it would have been different if a foreign, Irish Catholic, terrorist group had master-minded the Oklahoma City bombings? After Pearl Harbor, thousands of innocent Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in detention facilities. Will we not learn from this?
Separation of Church and State is my favorite principal of our constitution - but it is not an amendment. It is wrapped up pretty firmly in the first amendment - you know, the free speech one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The camps screaming that they can speak out against this non-mosque because of the 1st amendment have no concept that they are trampling all over the 1st amendment rights of others. I get that public figures, particularly media pundits have a right, a constitutional right, to speak against this thing. I also get that our constitution allows freedom of all speech, even untruthful speech. If Dr. Laura wants to drop the N-word on a broadcast, and face the wrath of the public and her producers, that is her business; but, when politicians weigh in with venomous words and misleading "facts," we have a very different problem.
Political figures, when acting in their official capacity - which, face it, is anytime they are in public - exercise free speech to voice personal opinion that does not uphold our constitution, I feel like they violate their station, and my trust. Pundits berated Obama for his support of the non-mosque. How could he do anything different? He is the highest elected official in our country - what right has he to any POLITICAL opinion that does not support the founding principals of this great nation? When he later said that he did not necessarily support the construction of this non-mosque, only their RIGHT to move forward, people jumped all over him for being weak. How is that weak? I want politicians that will support my rights, even if they don't share my values
I almost understand the mob-mentality that makes a witch-hunt seem like the only viable option - but will we never learn? We are still scared, and hurting, Almost ten years later, blaming the wrong people have cost us thousands of American lives, and disrupted our integrity as a country. Approximately 10% of the victims of 911 were Muslim-Americans. They are not a grieving community, they are part of our grieving community. Generations of Islamic Americans have enriched our culture and our country. In large and medium sized cities across America these people stand shoulder to shoulder with us. They are Teachers, Coaches, Doctors, Shopkeepers, garbage collectors, active members of our police force and military, ambulance drivers and lab techs. You probably do not know who most of them are - it is not necessarily safe for them to be open about their religion. How sad is it that a country that prides itself on religious freedom has created a culture where your coworker can't feel comfortable starting a conversation about family gatherings at Ramadan while you prattle on about your Christmas dinner?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Skimming the Colony
Indian Shores Beach is home to a black skimmer colony. Apparently the only one remaining in Pinellas County after a helicopter associated with filming a Sea-Doo ad scared another colony off their nest in Shell Key earlier this year. As a side rant - Pinellas has miles of beautiful beaches - why in the world would county officials authorize the filming of an advertisement on the shores of a wildlife preserve?
Yesterday I volunteered with the Audobon society to help protect these little critters from being trampelled by tourists, and yes, also educate the public about WHY you shouldn't let your 4 year old chase the babies. Black skimmers are a threatened species, they only nest on sandy beaches, and Florida's economy is largely based on public access to our beautiful beaches. Hmmmmmm - recipe for disaster, no wonder they are threatened. Sometime last November the Wild Child brought home pictures of these birds - I just thought it was a really ugly seagull, had no idea that they had environmental import, but after spending yesterday being a "Bird Steward," they are my new favorite sea bird.
First - the babies are adorable, little balls of irreverent fluff that manage to disregard their parent's instruction on a regular basis - "what? stay in the scrape where it is cool and the mommy can shade me? when there are feet to dodge and waves to catch?" not having it. Scrapes are shallow depressions scraped in the sand, in lieu of nests. The adults are excellent parents and have it down to a science. At first, it looks like there are two colonies, because farther down the beach adults and nearly fledged immatures are just hanging out, loafing. Periodically some of the loafers fly in to the main colony, and take over parenting duties for their mate, allowing the "on-duty" parent to take a break. Smart! I need that sort of parenting option, except I'd probably just hang with the loafers all day.
The babies do not fly until the are fledged (adult feathers in), so when they are nearly grown, it looks like a different species, or perhaps the female of the specie, but they are just awkward teens. This is why the Audobon society is out there talking to the public. the area between the shore and the nesting area is where skimmer families learn the ropes of being adults. Wandering away, putting the beak in the water and running to practice skimming when they fly, fighting, playing. This is also the area that people walk, jog and wander through - it is a public beach, and we can't restrict access. The nesting area is roped off, and there are huge fines for harassing the birds, but only if law enforcement actually observes the harassment, and if it is deemed malicious. With Turtles it is a little easier, they hatch at night, go to the water and swim away. The skimmers hang out on the beach for a couple of months, in the height of tourist season. So I spent my day educating people about how important it is to use a little consideration when wandering through the skimmer nursery, and hopefully getting people to enjoy these unusual birds that we may lose if we are not careful.
Yesterday I volunteered with the Audobon society to help protect these little critters from being trampelled by tourists, and yes, also educate the public about WHY you shouldn't let your 4 year old chase the babies. Black skimmers are a threatened species, they only nest on sandy beaches, and Florida's economy is largely based on public access to our beautiful beaches. Hmmmmmm - recipe for disaster, no wonder they are threatened. Sometime last November the Wild Child brought home pictures of these birds - I just thought it was a really ugly seagull, had no idea that they had environmental import, but after spending yesterday being a "Bird Steward," they are my new favorite sea bird.
First - the babies are adorable, little balls of irreverent fluff that manage to disregard their parent's instruction on a regular basis - "what? stay in the scrape where it is cool and the mommy can shade me? when there are feet to dodge and waves to catch?" not having it. Scrapes are shallow depressions scraped in the sand, in lieu of nests. The adults are excellent parents and have it down to a science. At first, it looks like there are two colonies, because farther down the beach adults and nearly fledged immatures are just hanging out, loafing. Periodically some of the loafers fly in to the main colony, and take over parenting duties for their mate, allowing the "on-duty" parent to take a break. Smart! I need that sort of parenting option, except I'd probably just hang with the loafers all day.
The babies do not fly until the are fledged (adult feathers in), so when they are nearly grown, it looks like a different species, or perhaps the female of the specie, but they are just awkward teens. This is why the Audobon society is out there talking to the public. the area between the shore and the nesting area is where skimmer families learn the ropes of being adults. Wandering away, putting the beak in the water and running to practice skimming when they fly, fighting, playing. This is also the area that people walk, jog and wander through - it is a public beach, and we can't restrict access. The nesting area is roped off, and there are huge fines for harassing the birds, but only if law enforcement actually observes the harassment, and if it is deemed malicious. With Turtles it is a little easier, they hatch at night, go to the water and swim away. The skimmers hang out on the beach for a couple of months, in the height of tourist season. So I spent my day educating people about how important it is to use a little consideration when wandering through the skimmer nursery, and hopefully getting people to enjoy these unusual birds that we may lose if we are not careful.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Random Thought
I have always had the notion that the world can be divided into two categories of people: those that deal with tough times with glimpses of suicidal thought, and those that entertain thoughts of homicide. I have never wondered what the world would be like without me. I have fantasized how the world would be devoid of the people that piss me off.
As a disclaimer - I have been carrying this idea around with me since my early teens. As an adult I am aware that there are lots of healthier ways of handling stress - prayer, meditation, forgiveness, whacking golf balls with names and faces drawn on them, etc. But seriously, do you know of anyone that hasn't at least thought of what their life would be like if Karma were truly instant, and controlled by human pettiness?
As a disclaimer - I have been carrying this idea around with me since my early teens. As an adult I am aware that there are lots of healthier ways of handling stress - prayer, meditation, forgiveness, whacking golf balls with names and faces drawn on them, etc. But seriously, do you know of anyone that hasn't at least thought of what their life would be like if Karma were truly instant, and controlled by human pettiness?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Critical Thought
I feel a rant coming on. I Love the internet. I love that information is instantly available. The knowledge of the universe is at our finger tips. And Knowledge is Power. Instant and unfettered. Uncensored and unverified. Frankly, there is more crap on the internet than real information. But that isn't really a problem, we have been so bombarded with crazy advertisements and false claims that most people know that you can't believe most of what you read, or hear, or see.
People with degrees in psychology get paid very big bucks to manipulate us through advertising, or even set the mood in a bar (lights in many bars are graded to be brighter higher up, fading to warm bronze colors at face level, so everyone looks tan and healthy, fostering the "in crowd" feel). This post is not really about the evils of corporate advertising, although it is one of my favorite rants. Advertising is at least honest in the respect that you know the motive is to sell you something. Buyer beware, etc. No, this rant has more to do with the constant barrage of half truths and warnings that come to me through email, face-book, texts and all other forms of electronic media. This is a rant against all of the people that are trying to keep me safe from computer virus'. poisonous products, terrorist plots, and fake chicken. And to all the people that are defending us from the amoral decisions of our political leaders, sneaky plots of the fraudulent charities, conspiracies of suburban housewives (OK, some of these may be true), and the horrible murderous trend of groups that are secretly gay, Muslim, vegetarian, or not Caucasian. Even just cute heartwarming stories about how some of favorite songs, sayings or cultural icons came to be.
These things become quickly viral. And it always seems to me that the more outrageous the claims, the more people are going to jump on them as true, respond and repost. I'm sure I drive all of my friends crazy, because I'm the one that always checks things out on Snopes.com and sends links to all the people that got the original post. Except, not always. When it is politically motivated, slanderous drivel, I often just sadly shake my head and delete it, because the people that send it are probably not interested in facts, but in propagating something that supports what they see as the truth. I'm a little embarrassed by how much I trust Snopes.com, I will freely admit it is the lazy person's fact check site. I'm sure they make mistakes, but at least they seem to make an effort to try to weed through most of the crap on the internet.
Recently someone sent me a beautiful, sad and poignant story of the origins of the song "Taps." Of course, it was complete crap, but harmless, and the perpetuating a myth that strengthens the power of the song. This is what parables, fables and even religious texts count on. A story that powerfully conveys the sentiment, in these cases, facts are not as important as the truth they convey. Where the rant part comes in is when the post begins with the announcement: "This is true!" "I checked it out on Snopes" or "My grandmother's 2nd cousin's great nephew works for the national confederate library, and he researched this for her." This stuff drives me crazy, especially when 30 seconds of a lazy google search result in a debunking of the story, and any claim to legitimacy. These are the kind of stories that so support a beautiful myth, that if it were not for the wild claims of legitimacy at the beginning, I wouldn't have even looked at Snopes, in fact, I may have reposted it, just because it is a good story.
My Favorite Faulkner quote is something on the lines of: "poets are not interested in facts, but in truths." I'm sure I mangled the quote - funny that it came from the Snope's trilogy - I just realized that. but this principal is what makes poetry, legends, mythology and art WORK - because they portray truths that are greater than the truths that we can grasp with our mere senses, the "facts," those constantly misleading bits of information that can be use to tell greater lies as well as larger truths.
Many years ago, sometime during Desert Storm, my mother gave me an "article" that someone had printed out for her. Computers were not as ubiquitous as they are now, where misinformation can become almost instantly viral,but this was making the email rounds, and someone had gotten a copy to my Mom. The article explained how decades of horrors visited upon us by the Muslim world, and justified a "no holds barred" approach to Iraq. Total destruction was perhaps too good for this monstrous civilization. Now we did not have a computer immediately available, and I had not heard of Snope's yet, but in reading the article, I saw that the discrepancies were obvious, and the tone abundantly so. You have to realize, my Mom is VERY intelligent, and not quick to judge, but the article was playing on fears that she had harbored since my Aunt and Uncle had visited the Middle East, back when Iraq was our friend. As I handed the article back to her, I pointed out that not a single incident listed mentioned Iraq. That all of them were the acts of terrorist groups or countries whose only association with Iraq happened to be global geography. It would be like blaming Canada for the bombing of Hiroshima, or the domestic terrorist acts of Timothy McVey. But there we go, loosely associated "facts" strategically placed to draw conclusions with no basis in truth.
I think, as culture, we are losing the power of critical thought. This is scary to me, as I feel that being able to analyze and interpret the information being thrown at us is our best bet for survival and growth as a civilization, and as individuals. With great Power comes great Responsibility. We are living in an age of fear, and I personally feel that few of our fears are grounded in fact. Our fears are based in mistrust, and a constant barrage of misinformation that supports the fears and mistrust that we started with. So please, please, please check your sources. Especially if the post you are about to send out inflamed your passions, anger, or fear. Chances are they will also add to the general fear and mistrust of your larger social network. How sad is this that? Especially if the information isn't factual, or if you are stirring ugly passions with 1/2 truths designed to mislead or support an agenda of fear and outrage.
People with degrees in psychology get paid very big bucks to manipulate us through advertising, or even set the mood in a bar (lights in many bars are graded to be brighter higher up, fading to warm bronze colors at face level, so everyone looks tan and healthy, fostering the "in crowd" feel). This post is not really about the evils of corporate advertising, although it is one of my favorite rants. Advertising is at least honest in the respect that you know the motive is to sell you something. Buyer beware, etc. No, this rant has more to do with the constant barrage of half truths and warnings that come to me through email, face-book, texts and all other forms of electronic media. This is a rant against all of the people that are trying to keep me safe from computer virus'. poisonous products, terrorist plots, and fake chicken. And to all the people that are defending us from the amoral decisions of our political leaders, sneaky plots of the fraudulent charities, conspiracies of suburban housewives (OK, some of these may be true), and the horrible murderous trend of groups that are secretly gay, Muslim, vegetarian, or not Caucasian. Even just cute heartwarming stories about how some of favorite songs, sayings or cultural icons came to be.
These things become quickly viral. And it always seems to me that the more outrageous the claims, the more people are going to jump on them as true, respond and repost. I'm sure I drive all of my friends crazy, because I'm the one that always checks things out on Snopes.com and sends links to all the people that got the original post. Except, not always. When it is politically motivated, slanderous drivel, I often just sadly shake my head and delete it, because the people that send it are probably not interested in facts, but in propagating something that supports what they see as the truth. I'm a little embarrassed by how much I trust Snopes.com, I will freely admit it is the lazy person's fact check site. I'm sure they make mistakes, but at least they seem to make an effort to try to weed through most of the crap on the internet.
Recently someone sent me a beautiful, sad and poignant story of the origins of the song "Taps." Of course, it was complete crap, but harmless, and the perpetuating a myth that strengthens the power of the song. This is what parables, fables and even religious texts count on. A story that powerfully conveys the sentiment, in these cases, facts are not as important as the truth they convey. Where the rant part comes in is when the post begins with the announcement: "This is true!" "I checked it out on Snopes" or "My grandmother's 2nd cousin's great nephew works for the national confederate library, and he researched this for her." This stuff drives me crazy, especially when 30 seconds of a lazy google search result in a debunking of the story, and any claim to legitimacy. These are the kind of stories that so support a beautiful myth, that if it were not for the wild claims of legitimacy at the beginning, I wouldn't have even looked at Snopes, in fact, I may have reposted it, just because it is a good story.
My Favorite Faulkner quote is something on the lines of: "poets are not interested in facts, but in truths." I'm sure I mangled the quote - funny that it came from the Snope's trilogy - I just realized that. but this principal is what makes poetry, legends, mythology and art WORK - because they portray truths that are greater than the truths that we can grasp with our mere senses, the "facts," those constantly misleading bits of information that can be use to tell greater lies as well as larger truths.
Many years ago, sometime during Desert Storm, my mother gave me an "article" that someone had printed out for her. Computers were not as ubiquitous as they are now, where misinformation can become almost instantly viral,but this was making the email rounds, and someone had gotten a copy to my Mom. The article explained how decades of horrors visited upon us by the Muslim world, and justified a "no holds barred" approach to Iraq. Total destruction was perhaps too good for this monstrous civilization. Now we did not have a computer immediately available, and I had not heard of Snope's yet, but in reading the article, I saw that the discrepancies were obvious, and the tone abundantly so. You have to realize, my Mom is VERY intelligent, and not quick to judge, but the article was playing on fears that she had harbored since my Aunt and Uncle had visited the Middle East, back when Iraq was our friend. As I handed the article back to her, I pointed out that not a single incident listed mentioned Iraq. That all of them were the acts of terrorist groups or countries whose only association with Iraq happened to be global geography. It would be like blaming Canada for the bombing of Hiroshima, or the domestic terrorist acts of Timothy McVey. But there we go, loosely associated "facts" strategically placed to draw conclusions with no basis in truth.
I think, as culture, we are losing the power of critical thought. This is scary to me, as I feel that being able to analyze and interpret the information being thrown at us is our best bet for survival and growth as a civilization, and as individuals. With great Power comes great Responsibility. We are living in an age of fear, and I personally feel that few of our fears are grounded in fact. Our fears are based in mistrust, and a constant barrage of misinformation that supports the fears and mistrust that we started with. So please, please, please check your sources. Especially if the post you are about to send out inflamed your passions, anger, or fear. Chances are they will also add to the general fear and mistrust of your larger social network. How sad is this that? Especially if the information isn't factual, or if you are stirring ugly passions with 1/2 truths designed to mislead or support an agenda of fear and outrage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)