The past few weeks have seen a slew of female "Firsts".
The US Navy is contemplating putting female sailors on submarines. Female sailors have served with distinction on surface boats (excuse me, ships), just not on submarines. I'm not sure why there is this oddball regulation...I mean, if non-fraternization rules ("Don't Screw Your Fellow Sailor" rules) are already in place, what's the difference? Are female submariners more likely to drive slathering males to acts of drooling, rapacious lust if the vessel they all ride in is beneath the surface of the ocean than female sailors riding the bounding main? So we shall soon see a "First" female submariner.
Then there was the "First" female director to win an Oscar...ironically, for a movie about he-men...big burly bomb squad, tobacco-spittin' Marines in Iraq. Today, it was announced that a woman is actually going to be the "First" female to coach a boys' football team. Oh, the humanity!
The past few decades have seen "First" female astronauts, Speaker of the House, Supreme Court Justices and shoemakers. I remember in the 1970's getting almightily tired of turning on the news, only to be confronted by news items about "First" female factory foremen (forewomen?), plumbers, firefighters, carpenters, college presidents and candlestick makers. I remember chuckling when I heard about the first female chef...women having been doing most of the cooking for the past several millenia, haven't they?
"Backward" countries from India to Chile, from Israel to Pakistan, had their "First" female head of state decades ago. Just goes to show you how advanced a country we live in. Hillary Clinton didn't stand a chance. I remember the tiptoeing that went on around Obama, in order for journalists to not appear to be racist. Too bad they didn't have the same strictures about not appearing sexist.
I remember commenting in the 1970's (aren't you proud that I can remember back that far?) that we as females will know we have really gotten equal status when it will no longer be remarkable or newsworthy that we hold those careers. I mean, it's really not news when we see the 4097th female electrician nor is it earth-shaking when we see the 1112th female surgeon.
Republicans were all hepped up in 2008 when John McCain, one of the more sexist of our Senators, named a woman as his Vice Presidential running mate. He apparently couldn't stand to share the stage with her because she is dumber than a box of rocks, but her whole Mom thing, he thought, looked good. The Dems did that way back when with Geraldine Ferraro, remember?
Sarah Palin reminds me of another thing I said back in the day. I observed (as did not a few of my fellow rabid feminists) that it seemed that sometimes, women who were totally unqualified and incapable were named to posts, so once they totally bombed at the task, the men in charge could say, "See, women aren't capable of performing this job!" A sort of Peterette Principal. I think maybe Palin has risen to the level of her incompetence since she can't seem to remember what newspapers she reads. It was a trick question, right?
A third thing I remember hearing back in the 1970's, when we were struggling to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, was the number "67". I had a campaign button with that number on it. Sixty-seven was the number of cents on the dollar which women were paid as opposed to their male counterparts performing the exact same task. It was a matter of labels. He was called a "Sanitation Manager", She was called a "maid." We still don't deserve a mention in the Constitution.
My mom once asked the head of her department why she was paid less than male members of the same department. She was told that it was because she wasn't a "head of household" and the men were supporting families, for gosh sakes. The implication was that her salary was pin money, while the men were holding the weight of the world on their shoulders. I wish someone had told me that when I was a single mom, 'cause then I could have required a raise, being a "head of household" supporting a family and all.
Women soldiers in Iraq are not technically in a battle zone. They aren't "allowed" to be involved in combat. Tell that to the women soldier who got her leg blown off in an IED attack. I wonder if she gets battle pay? You know, equal pay for equal risk. Oh, that's right, she isn't in a combat zone.
I don't necessarily call myself a feminist or at least not any more. The rabid feminists kinda ruined it for the rest of us. I just never could get into burning my bra or insisting that a female firefighter weighing 96 pounds soaking wet could carry victims out of burning buildings as well as a 200-pound buff man. I also could never get into hating men, which is apparently a requirement of a feminist now.
But I do call myself a humanist, because I'm just as rabid about things like dads getting a fair shake in custody hearings as I am with demanding that, when the women at my college were locked up at 10 p.m. and the men were allowed free range, perhaps they should have given the men hours as well.
I also never got into the whole title fight. What's in a name, after all? I really don't care if the person sitting on my city council is called a Councilman, Councilwoman, or even the awkward Councilperson. I just want he or she to run my city well and be paid the same salary. It gets really awkward when the municipality calls them "Committeepersons." And it's downright schizophrenic to call the men "Committeemen" and the women "Committeepersons."
In 2009, women finally got an "equal pay for equal work" law, thirty years after the ERA went down in flames. I heard not terribly long ago that we've achieved a 77 cent level...that is, women make 77 cents on the dollar to their male counterparts. In other words, we women got a raise. Whoopee.
We've come a long way, Baby?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Church and State
Be afraid. Be very afriad.
I just finished reading Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family. He chronicles the establishment and rise of a fundamentalist organization which has ties to many people in our government and in governments around the world. It seems that the Family doesn't have a theology, more like a love of power. They like being movers and shakers with our Presidents, our Congressional members, and even moving and shaking dictators around the world.
I was raised Baptist. Time was the Baptists were all about the separation of church and state. You know, like in our Constitution. Roger Williams, the Baptists' Founding Father, started the denomination because he didn't like the Puritan theocracies which governed Colonial America. Due to the Family and a certain evangelist named Billy Graham (you have perhaps heard of him?), Baptists nowadays aren't all that particular about a divide between church and state. That is, as long as it's the Baptist/Protestant church being all into state business.
(Billy Graham served as Father Confessor to a number of our Presidents, including Richard Nixon, the crook, who was "forgiven" by Graham for having caused the Constitutional crisis fondly known as Watergate.)
Members of Family prayer cells were instrumental in adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we trust" to our coinage. I used to think those peculiar phrases were instituted back in the days of our founding. I was surprized to find that it was a Family member of Congress who put those into common usage in the 1950's.
George W. Bush is a member of a Family prayer cell. They have cells, just like Al Quaida, all over the world. They sponsor the National Prayer Breakfast and prayer cells which meet in the halls of the Capitol. Yeah, that self-same Capitol with an O, which was built and is maintained by our government, our tax dollars, is the site of several prayer cells sponsored by the Family.
Bush was all "let's give money for social services to 'faith-based' organizations." Our tax dollars going to church organizations. Now, church organizations already enjoy some federal largesse in the form of tax-exemption. They are 501(c)3 organizations which are precluded from politicking or lobbying. That's news to me, since they appear to lobby all the time.
Planned Parenthood, however, is precluded from receiving federal funding for family planning in poor, third-world countries because PP performs abortions here in the US. Abortions paid for with private funding. Gee, we'd rather some poor woman in Africa have a dozen kids, despite the fact that she can't afford to feed them, than give her proper medical care. Because let's face it, family planning is medical care.
I have a problem with any legislation which denies abortion funding because some tax payers don't want their money going for abortions. Okay, let's use that argument on another line item in our budget. I'm against war and don't want my tax dollars going to pay for war. Why don't I get to make the same argument? Can you name any other line item in our huge budget where some tax payers have veto power because of their religious objections? I can't.
The Mormon church and some megachurches in California spent a bazillion dollars on California's challenge to the legally legislated gay marriage act. So now California has to say that they will honor the marriages that were performed when they were legal, they just won't perform any more. Huh? Sounds like church-based lobbying to me.
Did you catch the small news item about the Catholic bishops being asked to write the anti-abortion language in the House's Health Care Reform bill? What??!! Catholic bishops, being as how they are members of a religious organization, got to write a portion of our legislation. It doesn't matter whether this particular bill passes or not. Religious organizations shouldn't be allowed to write legislation. It's literally un-Constitutional. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Tea Baggers!
Anyway, George II decided to drop his idea about giving faith-based organizations money to provide social services after some Buddhists and some Wicca organizations applied. Better to not give any money out (and therefore deny social services to the needy) than to risk having Buddhists or Wiccans having tax dollars in their coffers. Was he afraid that those organizations might recruit or evangelize the clients they were serving? Was he unaware that Catholic Social Services and soup kitchens based in church basements regularly evangelize the clients they serve? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I'm told.
Several years ago, the Kansas Board of Education decided, under pressure from the Intelligent Design folks, to rewrite our natural history by decreeing that Creationism, not Evolution, would be taught in high school biology classes. I think they had to drop that idea because a) their graduates were being denied entrance into college because they weren't prepared for college biology, and b) they couldn't find any textbooks which were Creationism oriented, and c) they became the laughing stock of the nation.
The lines of separation between church and state have long been blurring, but church-dictated governance has become so commonplace that the church no longer feels the need to hide their presence within our Government.
I don't know about you, but I am very afraid.
I just finished reading Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family. He chronicles the establishment and rise of a fundamentalist organization which has ties to many people in our government and in governments around the world. It seems that the Family doesn't have a theology, more like a love of power. They like being movers and shakers with our Presidents, our Congressional members, and even moving and shaking dictators around the world.
I was raised Baptist. Time was the Baptists were all about the separation of church and state. You know, like in our Constitution. Roger Williams, the Baptists' Founding Father, started the denomination because he didn't like the Puritan theocracies which governed Colonial America. Due to the Family and a certain evangelist named Billy Graham (you have perhaps heard of him?), Baptists nowadays aren't all that particular about a divide between church and state. That is, as long as it's the Baptist/Protestant church being all into state business.
(Billy Graham served as Father Confessor to a number of our Presidents, including Richard Nixon, the crook, who was "forgiven" by Graham for having caused the Constitutional crisis fondly known as Watergate.)
Members of Family prayer cells were instrumental in adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we trust" to our coinage. I used to think those peculiar phrases were instituted back in the days of our founding. I was surprized to find that it was a Family member of Congress who put those into common usage in the 1950's.
George W. Bush is a member of a Family prayer cell. They have cells, just like Al Quaida, all over the world. They sponsor the National Prayer Breakfast and prayer cells which meet in the halls of the Capitol. Yeah, that self-same Capitol with an O, which was built and is maintained by our government, our tax dollars, is the site of several prayer cells sponsored by the Family.
Bush was all "let's give money for social services to 'faith-based' organizations." Our tax dollars going to church organizations. Now, church organizations already enjoy some federal largesse in the form of tax-exemption. They are 501(c)3 organizations which are precluded from politicking or lobbying. That's news to me, since they appear to lobby all the time.
Planned Parenthood, however, is precluded from receiving federal funding for family planning in poor, third-world countries because PP performs abortions here in the US. Abortions paid for with private funding. Gee, we'd rather some poor woman in Africa have a dozen kids, despite the fact that she can't afford to feed them, than give her proper medical care. Because let's face it, family planning is medical care.
I have a problem with any legislation which denies abortion funding because some tax payers don't want their money going for abortions. Okay, let's use that argument on another line item in our budget. I'm against war and don't want my tax dollars going to pay for war. Why don't I get to make the same argument? Can you name any other line item in our huge budget where some tax payers have veto power because of their religious objections? I can't.
The Mormon church and some megachurches in California spent a bazillion dollars on California's challenge to the legally legislated gay marriage act. So now California has to say that they will honor the marriages that were performed when they were legal, they just won't perform any more. Huh? Sounds like church-based lobbying to me.
Did you catch the small news item about the Catholic bishops being asked to write the anti-abortion language in the House's Health Care Reform bill? What??!! Catholic bishops, being as how they are members of a religious organization, got to write a portion of our legislation. It doesn't matter whether this particular bill passes or not. Religious organizations shouldn't be allowed to write legislation. It's literally un-Constitutional. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Tea Baggers!
Anyway, George II decided to drop his idea about giving faith-based organizations money to provide social services after some Buddhists and some Wicca organizations applied. Better to not give any money out (and therefore deny social services to the needy) than to risk having Buddhists or Wiccans having tax dollars in their coffers. Was he afraid that those organizations might recruit or evangelize the clients they were serving? Was he unaware that Catholic Social Services and soup kitchens based in church basements regularly evangelize the clients they serve? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I'm told.
Several years ago, the Kansas Board of Education decided, under pressure from the Intelligent Design folks, to rewrite our natural history by decreeing that Creationism, not Evolution, would be taught in high school biology classes. I think they had to drop that idea because a) their graduates were being denied entrance into college because they weren't prepared for college biology, and b) they couldn't find any textbooks which were Creationism oriented, and c) they became the laughing stock of the nation.
The lines of separation between church and state have long been blurring, but church-dictated governance has become so commonplace that the church no longer feels the need to hide their presence within our Government.
I don't know about you, but I am very afraid.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Curling
Forgive me for being stupid.
I'm really trying to get into watching the Olympics. I guess I should understand why, in order to watch three figure skaters (my fav), I have to sit through hours of two-man (or -woman) bobsledding and extreme skiing and curling. (I have a hard time discerning the difference between extreme skiing and regular, old, ordinary skiing...I mean, it's a guy or gal pelting down hill at a zillion miles an hour on two skinny boards risking life and limb...how extreme can you get?).
I understand most of the other sports, despite the fact that the racing sports seem to be decided on things like a difference of 1/1000th of a second, or being disqualified for having a coach who is a total dolt.
I'm not getting curling. With all the nonsense the commentators spew (see my blog "On Sports"), you'd think they could perhaps spend some time explaining some of the esoterica of the game. I've heard the announcers say, "the US is down by 1 with the hammer in the 6th end" Huh? What's "the hammer"? Sounds really serious. I don't see any hammers on the court.
The bobsledding announcers are bad enough. Witness: "You do not want deficit air". I would understand "deficit air" if it referred to a diner choking on a bit of steak or a man hanging by the neck until dead or even to an asthmatic. I don't understand "deficit air" when it refers to a bobsled. Bobsleds don't breathe, do they?
I also don't get the colors of the uniforms. Time was a team dressed in its national flag colors. Canada dressed in red and white. Germany dressed in black, gold and red. The US team dressed in red, white and blue. These days, the Germans dress in yellow and fuchia, the Canadians dress in black and red, and the US team dresses in delft blue. Not navy. Not midnight. Delft. No red to be seen. Don't get me started on the Norwegian team and their "argyle" pants. But I digress.
I don't understand curling scoring. It took me several attempts to understand what an "end" was. The "rocks" or "stones" look like tea kettles to me and, at least for the women teams, curling seems to be incredibly sexist. Here these women are, sliding tea kettles and using brooms to madly sweep the court clean. They seem hell-bent on performing housekeeping really, really well. Or is the curling area even called "court"? Must be a very dirty court, or whatever it's called.
It looks a little like shuffleboard on ice. Except there is something called a "T line". I'm assuming that's what crosses the "button" even though it looks more like a + sign. Why can't the announcers explain a little about the scoring? There's a 4-foot circle and and 8-foot circle. That I understand. But I don't understand why the opposing team is able to influence our team's rock by sweeping madly as our rock crosses toward the rear of those circles. Isn't that like receiver interference in football? I don't understand what "frozen" to the other rock means, though I guess it could mean that they are literally frozen, the tea kettles being on ice and all.
And evidently, even if our team gets their tea kettle onto one of the circle thingies, it doesn't count, especially if the other team knocks the tea kettle out of the circle thingy. Does the score not count, even on the button, until the "end" is over? These types of questions keep me up at night, which isn't fair, considering I'm only watching to get eventually to watch figure skating.
Instead of explaining the scoring, the announcers tell us about how rigorous the training is ("they spent 2,214 hours lifting weights" Huh?). It doesn't look very rigorous to me, except for the broom guys. They look like they have spent a great deal of time sweeping madly. I bet you could eat off their kitchen floors.
"He's taken his own stone out of the house" is another statement which makes no sense. "Go ahead and take your two"..."It's important for the rock to stay around". I'll say! There appears to be some sort of strategy involved, though I'll be blessed if I can figure out what it is. The players yell unintelligible things at the stones, or maybe they are yelling at their sweeping teammates which seems incredibly unfair, considering they are the one who threw the stone in the first place. One can't really tell.
Evidently, "icing" isn't about birthday cake, nor is it the same as "icing" in hocky. I really don't know icing at all.
Most inexplicable of all is the fact that there are actually "professional curlers". One thinks the phrase "professional curlers" would be used to described those sausage-shaped items one might encounter in a beauty salon.
So someone explain to this stupid, non-Northern woman, how does one score in curling? By hitting the button? By hitting one of the circle thingies? By hitting the other team's rock out of the circles? Explain to me, who understands the terms "quantum physics" and "opus" as it refers to composers and "dangling participle". I know if someone taps it into my hand, I'll get it.
I'm spending way too many brain cells pondering these mysteries.
I'm really trying to get into watching the Olympics. I guess I should understand why, in order to watch three figure skaters (my fav), I have to sit through hours of two-man (or -woman) bobsledding and extreme skiing and curling. (I have a hard time discerning the difference between extreme skiing and regular, old, ordinary skiing...I mean, it's a guy or gal pelting down hill at a zillion miles an hour on two skinny boards risking life and limb...how extreme can you get?).
I understand most of the other sports, despite the fact that the racing sports seem to be decided on things like a difference of 1/1000th of a second, or being disqualified for having a coach who is a total dolt.
I'm not getting curling. With all the nonsense the commentators spew (see my blog "On Sports"), you'd think they could perhaps spend some time explaining some of the esoterica of the game. I've heard the announcers say, "the US is down by 1 with the hammer in the 6th end" Huh? What's "the hammer"? Sounds really serious. I don't see any hammers on the court.
The bobsledding announcers are bad enough. Witness: "You do not want deficit air". I would understand "deficit air" if it referred to a diner choking on a bit of steak or a man hanging by the neck until dead or even to an asthmatic. I don't understand "deficit air" when it refers to a bobsled. Bobsleds don't breathe, do they?
I also don't get the colors of the uniforms. Time was a team dressed in its national flag colors. Canada dressed in red and white. Germany dressed in black, gold and red. The US team dressed in red, white and blue. These days, the Germans dress in yellow and fuchia, the Canadians dress in black and red, and the US team dresses in delft blue. Not navy. Not midnight. Delft. No red to be seen. Don't get me started on the Norwegian team and their "argyle" pants. But I digress.
I don't understand curling scoring. It took me several attempts to understand what an "end" was. The "rocks" or "stones" look like tea kettles to me and, at least for the women teams, curling seems to be incredibly sexist. Here these women are, sliding tea kettles and using brooms to madly sweep the court clean. They seem hell-bent on performing housekeeping really, really well. Or is the curling area even called "court"? Must be a very dirty court, or whatever it's called.
It looks a little like shuffleboard on ice. Except there is something called a "T line". I'm assuming that's what crosses the "button" even though it looks more like a + sign. Why can't the announcers explain a little about the scoring? There's a 4-foot circle and and 8-foot circle. That I understand. But I don't understand why the opposing team is able to influence our team's rock by sweeping madly as our rock crosses toward the rear of those circles. Isn't that like receiver interference in football? I don't understand what "frozen" to the other rock means, though I guess it could mean that they are literally frozen, the tea kettles being on ice and all.
And evidently, even if our team gets their tea kettle onto one of the circle thingies, it doesn't count, especially if the other team knocks the tea kettle out of the circle thingy. Does the score not count, even on the button, until the "end" is over? These types of questions keep me up at night, which isn't fair, considering I'm only watching to get eventually to watch figure skating.
Instead of explaining the scoring, the announcers tell us about how rigorous the training is ("they spent 2,214 hours lifting weights" Huh?). It doesn't look very rigorous to me, except for the broom guys. They look like they have spent a great deal of time sweeping madly. I bet you could eat off their kitchen floors.
"He's taken his own stone out of the house" is another statement which makes no sense. "Go ahead and take your two"..."It's important for the rock to stay around". I'll say! There appears to be some sort of strategy involved, though I'll be blessed if I can figure out what it is. The players yell unintelligible things at the stones, or maybe they are yelling at their sweeping teammates which seems incredibly unfair, considering they are the one who threw the stone in the first place. One can't really tell.
Evidently, "icing" isn't about birthday cake, nor is it the same as "icing" in hocky. I really don't know icing at all.
Most inexplicable of all is the fact that there are actually "professional curlers". One thinks the phrase "professional curlers" would be used to described those sausage-shaped items one might encounter in a beauty salon.
So someone explain to this stupid, non-Northern woman, how does one score in curling? By hitting the button? By hitting one of the circle thingies? By hitting the other team's rock out of the circles? Explain to me, who understands the terms "quantum physics" and "opus" as it refers to composers and "dangling participle". I know if someone taps it into my hand, I'll get it.
I'm spending way too many brain cells pondering these mysteries.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
On Sports
A sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive, and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. - Wikipedia
I admit I'm a fair-weather sports observer. I don't particularly like watching sports on TV but I do occasionally watch, since I only have to watch the Olympics every two years. My two favorite sports to watch are basketball and soccer. All those tight little butts in shorts. Plus, I understand them better. I watched the Super Bowl while reading a book, looking up whenever I heard a shout from the stands, signifying there was something worth watching. Because every play is now instantly replayed from several different angles, you don't miss what the shouting is all about.
In general, I find football boring. Sacrilege, you shout! At least in basketball or soccer, an hour is really an hour, not three. The action in football seems to be 15 seconds of play followed by 2 1/2 minutes of measuring yardage and those black-and-white garbed guys talking to each other. Not my idea of real action.
I'm watching Olympic speed skating as I write this post. Fortunately for the Dutch, a Dutchman named Kramer won the gold, because as the commentators pointed out, ad nauseum, the Dutch would have considered a bronze or silver medal a loss. (They didn't make any literary references to Hans Brinker) How stupid can you get? Last time I checked, a medal means you are the second- or third-best in the world. If I were the second- or third-best reader or knitter or seamstress in the world, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
That may be why I don't watch sports much. The commentators are incredibly inane. I'm a big fan of figure skating, but the commentators make me crazy. "Oh, she really missed that quadruple axle and her timing was off on the landing," some yahoo in a gold blazer says. "Let's see how well YOU perform a quadruple axle," I yell at the TV.
I've watched exactly one hockey game in real life. St. Louis Blues. 1969. Some player got kicked in the head with a skate blade and the blood on the ice was copious. Pretty color, but a little sickening. I did watch the US hocky team win the Olympics way back when, just because they weren't expected to win and they kicked Russia's butt. I have to admit I liked watching Russia's butt get kicked.
Another reason I don't watch sports on TV is that I find it hard to follow the ball, literally. I have a golf-nutty family, who think Sunday afternoons are high holy days for golfers. You see the guy "address" the ball (Hi, ball. How are ya doin'?), then he swings, a swing that looks just like every other swing by every other golfer. (The commentators tell me it's his signature swing, but who can tell?)
The camera follows the ball, or at least I THINK that's what it's doing because I see an expanse of blue sky for several seconds, then the camera comes down on the greeny part. I sometimes wonder if the cameraman isn't having us on...maybe he just swings his camera lens to the sky and the ball isn't really in the frame. He counts to three, then swings his lens to the greeny part, hoping that that's where the ball will come down. 'Cause I sure as heck can't see a golf ball in the frame.
During the Olympics, the commentators are even worse. They have endless details that one doesn't really need to know. Case in point: in the past hour, I have learned the population of a skater's home town, the age of another's daughter, the composition of the special high-tech fabric in their outfits (high-tech fabric????), how they performed at the last Olympics and the fact that the Russians train in Italy, the Ukrainians train in Colorado and the Chinese train in Germany. (Can they honestly represent their country if they need to go somewhere else to train?)
Way too much information. Shut up and let me watch, already.
I enjoyed the parade of First Nations during the opening ceremonies in Vancouver, but am confused about what the First Nations have to do with sports. I enjoyed the dancers way more than I enjoyed the speed skaters. Some guy on skates going around in circles 1/100th of a second faster than some other guy.
Pro sports are the worst. Because, in addition to telling the viewer way too much information about the players' background, stats and personal home life, commentators are also obligated to tell us their legal status, how much bail was and when their court date is. I realize most pro sports figures don't behave badly, but there are enough badly behaving sports stars that the sports portion of the evening news begins to sound a lot like the police blotter. This one had a gun in the locker room, that one beats up his girlfriend for fun, the other one is involved in dog fighting.
I guess the main reason I watch at all is so I'll at least be able to carry on a decent conversation with a sports nut. One feels badly if someone says, "How 'bout that Gretsky?" and one says "What's a Gretsky?" Too bad sports nuts don't have the same level of social responsibility. Can you imagine one of them watching ballet so they can carry on a decent conversation with me?
There's a team here in North Carolina that calls themselves the Tarheels and I find myself pondering what a tarheel is and doesn't it sound derogatory. But at least here in North Carolina, they are REALLY into basketball. All those tight butts in shorts. I'm happy.
I admit I'm a fair-weather sports observer. I don't particularly like watching sports on TV but I do occasionally watch, since I only have to watch the Olympics every two years. My two favorite sports to watch are basketball and soccer. All those tight little butts in shorts. Plus, I understand them better. I watched the Super Bowl while reading a book, looking up whenever I heard a shout from the stands, signifying there was something worth watching. Because every play is now instantly replayed from several different angles, you don't miss what the shouting is all about.
In general, I find football boring. Sacrilege, you shout! At least in basketball or soccer, an hour is really an hour, not three. The action in football seems to be 15 seconds of play followed by 2 1/2 minutes of measuring yardage and those black-and-white garbed guys talking to each other. Not my idea of real action.
I'm watching Olympic speed skating as I write this post. Fortunately for the Dutch, a Dutchman named Kramer won the gold, because as the commentators pointed out, ad nauseum, the Dutch would have considered a bronze or silver medal a loss. (They didn't make any literary references to Hans Brinker) How stupid can you get? Last time I checked, a medal means you are the second- or third-best in the world. If I were the second- or third-best reader or knitter or seamstress in the world, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
That may be why I don't watch sports much. The commentators are incredibly inane. I'm a big fan of figure skating, but the commentators make me crazy. "Oh, she really missed that quadruple axle and her timing was off on the landing," some yahoo in a gold blazer says. "Let's see how well YOU perform a quadruple axle," I yell at the TV.
I've watched exactly one hockey game in real life. St. Louis Blues. 1969. Some player got kicked in the head with a skate blade and the blood on the ice was copious. Pretty color, but a little sickening. I did watch the US hocky team win the Olympics way back when, just because they weren't expected to win and they kicked Russia's butt. I have to admit I liked watching Russia's butt get kicked.
Another reason I don't watch sports on TV is that I find it hard to follow the ball, literally. I have a golf-nutty family, who think Sunday afternoons are high holy days for golfers. You see the guy "address" the ball (Hi, ball. How are ya doin'?), then he swings, a swing that looks just like every other swing by every other golfer. (The commentators tell me it's his signature swing, but who can tell?)
The camera follows the ball, or at least I THINK that's what it's doing because I see an expanse of blue sky for several seconds, then the camera comes down on the greeny part. I sometimes wonder if the cameraman isn't having us on...maybe he just swings his camera lens to the sky and the ball isn't really in the frame. He counts to three, then swings his lens to the greeny part, hoping that that's where the ball will come down. 'Cause I sure as heck can't see a golf ball in the frame.
During the Olympics, the commentators are even worse. They have endless details that one doesn't really need to know. Case in point: in the past hour, I have learned the population of a skater's home town, the age of another's daughter, the composition of the special high-tech fabric in their outfits (high-tech fabric????), how they performed at the last Olympics and the fact that the Russians train in Italy, the Ukrainians train in Colorado and the Chinese train in Germany. (Can they honestly represent their country if they need to go somewhere else to train?)
Way too much information. Shut up and let me watch, already.
I enjoyed the parade of First Nations during the opening ceremonies in Vancouver, but am confused about what the First Nations have to do with sports. I enjoyed the dancers way more than I enjoyed the speed skaters. Some guy on skates going around in circles 1/100th of a second faster than some other guy.
Pro sports are the worst. Because, in addition to telling the viewer way too much information about the players' background, stats and personal home life, commentators are also obligated to tell us their legal status, how much bail was and when their court date is. I realize most pro sports figures don't behave badly, but there are enough badly behaving sports stars that the sports portion of the evening news begins to sound a lot like the police blotter. This one had a gun in the locker room, that one beats up his girlfriend for fun, the other one is involved in dog fighting.
I guess the main reason I watch at all is so I'll at least be able to carry on a decent conversation with a sports nut. One feels badly if someone says, "How 'bout that Gretsky?" and one says "What's a Gretsky?" Too bad sports nuts don't have the same level of social responsibility. Can you imagine one of them watching ballet so they can carry on a decent conversation with me?
There's a team here in North Carolina that calls themselves the Tarheels and I find myself pondering what a tarheel is and doesn't it sound derogatory. But at least here in North Carolina, they are REALLY into basketball. All those tight butts in shorts. I'm happy.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Kids as Hookers
Am I the only person who is having a problem with the poor kid in Brazil who has been chosen the "Queen of Carnival"?
I don't have a problem with the girl, 7 years old, who wants to dance the Samba (her country's national dance) at Carnival (her country's annual pageant...think "Mardi Gras"). What I DO have a problem with is the costume, just as I have a problem with most tyke beauty pageants in this country. Kids in our country dress up like little miniature hookers, complete with dresses cut to the navel and false eyelashes.
There is a big hoopla, both in this country and in Brazil, about the appropriateness of having a 7-year-old dance in a provocative manner, in a provocative costume. So would it be the same if the kid danced in an up-to-the-chin, longed-sleeved, down-to-the-ankles dress? I think not.
My business is making children's clothing, so, despite the fact that I had boys who wouldn't be caught dead within 5 miles of a pageant, I think I have some authority here. I've been on-line for those US pageant web sites and I'm here to tell you, they are a child molester's dream.
Brazil reportedly has a problem with child sexual trafficking. A judge has been determined to be the best arbiter of whether this girl in Brazil can dance at Carnival. (And we've all seen how competent the courts in Brazil are when it comes to "what's best for the child."
It's the Jean-Benet Ramsey syndrome. Dress a young girl up in provocative clothing, make her think that pleasing adults and looking beautiful/sexy are appropriate goals for a young girl and look what happens. Though the Ramsey case has never been solved, it's my humble opinion that her death was, at least indirectly, caused by her participation in these baby hooker pageants.
Just as the parents of Michael Jackson's victims willingly handed over their sons to an almost certain molestation, for the purpose of being able to sue Jackson later, these pageant parents are setting their little darlings up for, at the very least, being ogled at by some very nasty pervs. Who doesn't think that child molesters slather at these photos on-line?
Just to be fair, some pageants (Bumble Bee and others) emphasize the kids being themselves and ban teeth capping, plastic surgery and hair weaves. But many other pageants do not. Children are beautiful all by themselves and they don't need all the add-ons.
I think my main beef is the way the kids are dressed. (Of course, being a children's clothing designer, I have an admitted bias!) There are size 7 jeans at WalMart with "Pussy" emblazoned on the rear! There are young girls performing a strip-tease for their "talent" at pageants! (And no, I'm not referring to a movie. Watch "Toddlers & Tiaras" on TLC sometime.)
I've been accused of being one of those wild-eyed maniacs who secretly have some rather perturbing fantasies. I'm not. I think sex education should be taught in our schools because, in part, it teaches children to protect themselves from child molesters and perverts.
I'm instead one of those people who believes that, at the very least, child molesters should be locked up for life. I believe kids should be kids AND DRESS LIKE KIDS. Is it any wonder, with parents dressing up baby whores, that kids are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages? The message to the kids is, "It's all right to dress and behave sexually when you are 6", leaving them open to the perverted amongst us.
So for those in the US who are against a mini-Brazilian 7-year-old doing a bump-and-grind, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
I don't have a problem with the girl, 7 years old, who wants to dance the Samba (her country's national dance) at Carnival (her country's annual pageant...think "Mardi Gras"). What I DO have a problem with is the costume, just as I have a problem with most tyke beauty pageants in this country. Kids in our country dress up like little miniature hookers, complete with dresses cut to the navel and false eyelashes.
There is a big hoopla, both in this country and in Brazil, about the appropriateness of having a 7-year-old dance in a provocative manner, in a provocative costume. So would it be the same if the kid danced in an up-to-the-chin, longed-sleeved, down-to-the-ankles dress? I think not.
My business is making children's clothing, so, despite the fact that I had boys who wouldn't be caught dead within 5 miles of a pageant, I think I have some authority here. I've been on-line for those US pageant web sites and I'm here to tell you, they are a child molester's dream.
Brazil reportedly has a problem with child sexual trafficking. A judge has been determined to be the best arbiter of whether this girl in Brazil can dance at Carnival. (And we've all seen how competent the courts in Brazil are when it comes to "what's best for the child."
It's the Jean-Benet Ramsey syndrome. Dress a young girl up in provocative clothing, make her think that pleasing adults and looking beautiful/sexy are appropriate goals for a young girl and look what happens. Though the Ramsey case has never been solved, it's my humble opinion that her death was, at least indirectly, caused by her participation in these baby hooker pageants.
Just as the parents of Michael Jackson's victims willingly handed over their sons to an almost certain molestation, for the purpose of being able to sue Jackson later, these pageant parents are setting their little darlings up for, at the very least, being ogled at by some very nasty pervs. Who doesn't think that child molesters slather at these photos on-line?
Just to be fair, some pageants (Bumble Bee and others) emphasize the kids being themselves and ban teeth capping, plastic surgery and hair weaves. But many other pageants do not. Children are beautiful all by themselves and they don't need all the add-ons.
I think my main beef is the way the kids are dressed. (Of course, being a children's clothing designer, I have an admitted bias!) There are size 7 jeans at WalMart with "Pussy" emblazoned on the rear! There are young girls performing a strip-tease for their "talent" at pageants! (And no, I'm not referring to a movie. Watch "Toddlers & Tiaras" on TLC sometime.)
I've been accused of being one of those wild-eyed maniacs who secretly have some rather perturbing fantasies. I'm not. I think sex education should be taught in our schools because, in part, it teaches children to protect themselves from child molesters and perverts.
I'm instead one of those people who believes that, at the very least, child molesters should be locked up for life. I believe kids should be kids AND DRESS LIKE KIDS. Is it any wonder, with parents dressing up baby whores, that kids are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages? The message to the kids is, "It's all right to dress and behave sexually when you are 6", leaving them open to the perverted amongst us.
So for those in the US who are against a mini-Brazilian 7-year-old doing a bump-and-grind, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A Question of Priorities
I'm going out on a limb here to describe some of my disquiet about our country's heroic and valiant efforts in Haiti, a country which has always struggled but which recently has been visited by a truly doomsday earthquake.
It is not that I don't care for the suffering of the people of Haiti, nor that I believe they are somehow undeserving of the enormous aid we and other nations of the world have given unstintingly. I believe in nations with more blessings sharing with those who have so little.
My disquiet is illustrated by a piece of irony from a few years ago. There was this joke making the rounds about the difference between a hurricane in Indonesia and a hurricane in New Orleans. The punch line was: If you are in Indonesia, the US government will send aid. (Ba-dum dum)
I understand that in an increasingly global economy, we are all so interconnected. United we stand, divided we fall.
Remember the old adage, "Charity begins at home"? The adage was seldom applied growing up in the deep South. Missionaries from "deepest darkest Africa" (my childish mind always envisioned a place where the sun did not shine, since it was referred to as the "dark" continent) were much lauded. Congregations hung on their every word, gathering clothing and Bibles to fill an overseas container for the "poor heathens across the ocean." While just across town, there were dark-skinned children who lived in shanties, who went to bed hungry and who weren't allowed to attend our schools and churches.
Does anyone else see the utter hypocrisy of a Congress debating whether to fund healthcare and education for US children on the one hand (evidently, we don't have all that much money) and on the other hand sending doctors and food and medicines to Haiti, whose victims are undoubtedly in more dire straits in this current crisis?
Please don't think I am unfeeling or in favor of ignoring Haiti or that I grew horns since my last post. I just wonder where our priorities lie and why.
Several years ago, a good Christian lady whom I admire and respect a great deal made the emphatic statement that we are a society who values children. She practically dropped her dentures when I responded with "No, I don't think we value children."
My argument was this: If you listen to our rhetoric, you could certainly make a case for our society's care and value of children. But if you were to look at our actions, you could equally make a case for us not giving a tinker's damn about children. Or, at least not those who live in the next block.
Our rhetoric says: "Every child deserves to grow up in safety in a loving home, nurtured and educated to achieve their God-given potential."
Our actions say: "Every child doesn't deserve to grow up in a loving home, or even grow up at all. In this country, the world's most wealthy, we have children whose only meal of the day is the one they get at school. If that. Children are regularly given back to parents who have proven to be abusers. Child molesters are released after 4 years on good behavior and our schools have become warehouses or babysitters.
While our schools are daily stressed with funding all the various programs special needs children need (not to mention the untold millions spent on children who do not speak English), our "average" and "gifted" students lanquish in classrooms that are not designed to meet their needs or grow their minds.
Several years ago, I observed that our Alternative Schools have become, by happenstance, our "gifted" program, "No Child Left Behind" having desimated school budgets to fund the convoluted and at times contradictory requirements of that unfunded mandate.
Alternative Schools, to the uninitiated, are set-aside schools whereby the behavior-disordered students are kept away from the "good" students, presumably so the good children won't become infected with whatever the "bad" students have.
When you look at these "disordered and disorderly" students, you realize that, in many instances, they are students who couldn't get the beleagured teachers' attention, so they acted out. They are bored and unchallenged by the dreck that our education systems spew. Teachers are having their feet held to the fire to educate the special needs children, while the average and gifted students are just supposed to get it on their own.
(A teacher friend of mine told me the apocryphal story about her child, then 9-years-old, who said that ADHD Johnny in her class was given a piece of candy every day if he sat quietly for an hour. The child complained that SHE had sat quietly all day, so why didn't she get a piece of candy? Why indeed?)
The founders of a gifted charter school have determined that, for every $10 spent on average students in the US, $100 is spent on special needs children, while $1 is spent on gifted and talented children. From which two groups are we to rebuild our technological research capabilities, to find a cure for cancer, to probe the mysteries of the universe?
Once again, I'm not suggesting that the special needs kids do not deserve the attention and financial emphasis they currently enjoy. They certainly do and in a true "No Child Left Behind" universe, they would certainly be included. But we are "Leaving Behind" the children of average and above average talents and capabilities to cater to those who might never learn enough to make it in the world. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are trailing the world in education.
Two possible conclusions come to mind and I'm not sure to which I subscribe:
1) That the world (and our country) has the wherewithal to truly take care of ALL children, whether in Haiti or in an inner city school. whether gifted or special needs, and we have chosen NOT to use our resources in that fashion (and therefore do NOT value children) or,
2) That we have limited resources and therefore should be spending those resources on children in our own country who might one day find that cure or make that technological breakthrough. Once those have been served, then we certainly should spread the wealth, but until then, charity begins at home.
Perhaps there are other conclusions, but these are the ones that spring to my admittedly limited mind. Like Jonathan Swift in his satiric "A Modest Proposal", I confess to a smallish world view. This is indeed a "modest proposal" that I would be very surprised to see come to pass whereby we gave all children what they need to become productive adults.
I understand that "poverty" in the United States doesn't look quite the same as "poverty" in a third world country. Our students consider themselves truly poor if they can't afford an iPod or the latest pair of $100 jeans. But we have children who live on the cold streets of Detroit, not on the streets in tropical Haiti. We have young teens who sell their bodies for a warm place to stay and a Big Mac. Does the child who goes to bed hungry in the good ole US of A feel any less hungry than the poor kid in Haiti?
Until we stop slashing school lunch programs, until we keep child molesters permanently behind bars, until we ensure the safety of teen sex slaves, until we make sure every child lives in a warm, safe place, with enough food to eat and access to a quality education, then we are not a society who values children.
It's just rhetoric.
It is not that I don't care for the suffering of the people of Haiti, nor that I believe they are somehow undeserving of the enormous aid we and other nations of the world have given unstintingly. I believe in nations with more blessings sharing with those who have so little.
My disquiet is illustrated by a piece of irony from a few years ago. There was this joke making the rounds about the difference between a hurricane in Indonesia and a hurricane in New Orleans. The punch line was: If you are in Indonesia, the US government will send aid. (Ba-dum dum)
I understand that in an increasingly global economy, we are all so interconnected. United we stand, divided we fall.
Remember the old adage, "Charity begins at home"? The adage was seldom applied growing up in the deep South. Missionaries from "deepest darkest Africa" (my childish mind always envisioned a place where the sun did not shine, since it was referred to as the "dark" continent) were much lauded. Congregations hung on their every word, gathering clothing and Bibles to fill an overseas container for the "poor heathens across the ocean." While just across town, there were dark-skinned children who lived in shanties, who went to bed hungry and who weren't allowed to attend our schools and churches.
Does anyone else see the utter hypocrisy of a Congress debating whether to fund healthcare and education for US children on the one hand (evidently, we don't have all that much money) and on the other hand sending doctors and food and medicines to Haiti, whose victims are undoubtedly in more dire straits in this current crisis?
Please don't think I am unfeeling or in favor of ignoring Haiti or that I grew horns since my last post. I just wonder where our priorities lie and why.
Several years ago, a good Christian lady whom I admire and respect a great deal made the emphatic statement that we are a society who values children. She practically dropped her dentures when I responded with "No, I don't think we value children."
My argument was this: If you listen to our rhetoric, you could certainly make a case for our society's care and value of children. But if you were to look at our actions, you could equally make a case for us not giving a tinker's damn about children. Or, at least not those who live in the next block.
Our rhetoric says: "Every child deserves to grow up in safety in a loving home, nurtured and educated to achieve their God-given potential."
Our actions say: "Every child doesn't deserve to grow up in a loving home, or even grow up at all. In this country, the world's most wealthy, we have children whose only meal of the day is the one they get at school. If that. Children are regularly given back to parents who have proven to be abusers. Child molesters are released after 4 years on good behavior and our schools have become warehouses or babysitters.
While our schools are daily stressed with funding all the various programs special needs children need (not to mention the untold millions spent on children who do not speak English), our "average" and "gifted" students lanquish in classrooms that are not designed to meet their needs or grow their minds.
Several years ago, I observed that our Alternative Schools have become, by happenstance, our "gifted" program, "No Child Left Behind" having desimated school budgets to fund the convoluted and at times contradictory requirements of that unfunded mandate.
Alternative Schools, to the uninitiated, are set-aside schools whereby the behavior-disordered students are kept away from the "good" students, presumably so the good children won't become infected with whatever the "bad" students have.
When you look at these "disordered and disorderly" students, you realize that, in many instances, they are students who couldn't get the beleagured teachers' attention, so they acted out. They are bored and unchallenged by the dreck that our education systems spew. Teachers are having their feet held to the fire to educate the special needs children, while the average and gifted students are just supposed to get it on their own.
(A teacher friend of mine told me the apocryphal story about her child, then 9-years-old, who said that ADHD Johnny in her class was given a piece of candy every day if he sat quietly for an hour. The child complained that SHE had sat quietly all day, so why didn't she get a piece of candy? Why indeed?)
The founders of a gifted charter school have determined that, for every $10 spent on average students in the US, $100 is spent on special needs children, while $1 is spent on gifted and talented children. From which two groups are we to rebuild our technological research capabilities, to find a cure for cancer, to probe the mysteries of the universe?
Once again, I'm not suggesting that the special needs kids do not deserve the attention and financial emphasis they currently enjoy. They certainly do and in a true "No Child Left Behind" universe, they would certainly be included. But we are "Leaving Behind" the children of average and above average talents and capabilities to cater to those who might never learn enough to make it in the world. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are trailing the world in education.
Two possible conclusions come to mind and I'm not sure to which I subscribe:
1) That the world (and our country) has the wherewithal to truly take care of ALL children, whether in Haiti or in an inner city school. whether gifted or special needs, and we have chosen NOT to use our resources in that fashion (and therefore do NOT value children) or,
2) That we have limited resources and therefore should be spending those resources on children in our own country who might one day find that cure or make that technological breakthrough. Once those have been served, then we certainly should spread the wealth, but until then, charity begins at home.
Perhaps there are other conclusions, but these are the ones that spring to my admittedly limited mind. Like Jonathan Swift in his satiric "A Modest Proposal", I confess to a smallish world view. This is indeed a "modest proposal" that I would be very surprised to see come to pass whereby we gave all children what they need to become productive adults.
I understand that "poverty" in the United States doesn't look quite the same as "poverty" in a third world country. Our students consider themselves truly poor if they can't afford an iPod or the latest pair of $100 jeans. But we have children who live on the cold streets of Detroit, not on the streets in tropical Haiti. We have young teens who sell their bodies for a warm place to stay and a Big Mac. Does the child who goes to bed hungry in the good ole US of A feel any less hungry than the poor kid in Haiti?
Until we stop slashing school lunch programs, until we keep child molesters permanently behind bars, until we ensure the safety of teen sex slaves, until we make sure every child lives in a warm, safe place, with enough food to eat and access to a quality education, then we are not a society who values children.
It's just rhetoric.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Rush Limbaugh's Heart
Did you catch this story over the New Year holiday? Rush Limbaugh complained of chest pains while vacationing in Hawaii (perhaps he was invited over to the Obama's rental for a cocktail? NOT!). He was "Rushed" to the hospital, immediately admitted, spent a couple of days getting checked out, whereupon the doctors pronounced that there is nothing wrong with Limbaugh's heart.
Really???
I would posit that there are quite a few things wrong with Limbaugh's heart. Maybe not the beating, pumping organ thing in his chest. But with his heart, the feeling, caring about his fellow man thing located who knows where. Because upon being released from the hospital, our friend Rush held a press conference during which he announced that we have a wonderful health care system, that there is nothing wrong with our health care system and that he was treated just like any other patient.
Perhaps he meant to say, treated just like any other patient WITH HEALTH INSURANCE. Now, I don't pretend to know what coverage he has, nor what the total bill was upon release. And my guess is that the fine physicians in Hawaii sent him home with a list of instructions. Lose weight. Eat healthy. Have your personal physician check you out. Exercise.
I imagine that Rush, being all Rush, asked them if they could possibly give him a prescription. For the pain, of course. And they laughed and said, "What a kidder!." And Rush said, "I'm not kidding. Can you hook me up?"
So Rush leaves and continues on his vacation (I'm trying to keep the image of Rush in a speedo tanning on the beach out of my head) and when he gets back home, he hires a personal trainer and works out at a posh gym and has whoever cooks his meals buy those lean cuts of meat that cost a bazillion dollars an ounce. When he dines out, he tries out that swank new joint that serves silver-dollar-sized portions in the middle of a plate with pretty sauce drizzled on it. When he gets the co-pay bill of $50, he whips out his checkbook and with a flourish signs the check and everything is all right with the world. Oh, and his personal physician orders a thousand tests and confirms that the cardiologists in Hawaii were indeed right...there's nothing wrong with Rush's heart.
Really? Nothing wrong with his heart? Just like any other patient?
I'm guessing, odds being what they are, that on that very day at that same hospital, some poor slob (we'll call him Tanaki) came in with chest pains. Unfortunately, Tanaki is one of the 30 million (16 million? 42 million? Who knows?) people in our country who have no health care insurance.
Tanaki was parked in the ER for a couple of hours, then taken to a "triage" room where he cooled his heels for a couple more hours. (Oh, I forgot, the minute Tanaki came in the ER door, he was asked to show his proof of insurance and, barring that, some proof of income, so they would know he can pay.)
Then they ran an EKG by a tech who is new on the job (it's a holiday, remember, and the skeleton crew AREN'T what you'd call the most experienced pros) and the EKG was read after a time by a radiologist or cardiologist who is also new. They can't admit Tanaki 'cause there's nothing wrong with his heart, just like Rush. They can't hold him over for observation because, unlike Rush, he has no health care insurance.
Tanaki goes home with the same list of instructions. Lose weight. Eat healthy. Have your personal physician check you out. Exercise.
Except that Tanaki can't afford a personal trainer, nor a posh gym. Tanaki works 75 hours a week at two jobs, neither of which provide insurance because he's not "full time". Tanaki has no personal physician and he can't afford the expensive meat and the organic vegetables, etc. He was presented with a bill for a bazillion dollars upon leaving the hospital. He and his disabled wife stress about how to pay this bill off, a little bit at a time. With the $50 per month they have to squeeze out of their budget, they figure they'll be about 122 when they finally pay it off. Oh, and now, he has a "pre-existing condition."
Perhaps Rush should check back into the hospital and have another full work-up. 'Cause there's definitely something wrong with his heart. Not to mention his brain, but that's another blog.
Really???
I would posit that there are quite a few things wrong with Limbaugh's heart. Maybe not the beating, pumping organ thing in his chest. But with his heart, the feeling, caring about his fellow man thing located who knows where. Because upon being released from the hospital, our friend Rush held a press conference during which he announced that we have a wonderful health care system, that there is nothing wrong with our health care system and that he was treated just like any other patient.
Perhaps he meant to say, treated just like any other patient WITH HEALTH INSURANCE. Now, I don't pretend to know what coverage he has, nor what the total bill was upon release. And my guess is that the fine physicians in Hawaii sent him home with a list of instructions. Lose weight. Eat healthy. Have your personal physician check you out. Exercise.
I imagine that Rush, being all Rush, asked them if they could possibly give him a prescription. For the pain, of course. And they laughed and said, "What a kidder!." And Rush said, "I'm not kidding. Can you hook me up?"
So Rush leaves and continues on his vacation (I'm trying to keep the image of Rush in a speedo tanning on the beach out of my head) and when he gets back home, he hires a personal trainer and works out at a posh gym and has whoever cooks his meals buy those lean cuts of meat that cost a bazillion dollars an ounce. When he dines out, he tries out that swank new joint that serves silver-dollar-sized portions in the middle of a plate with pretty sauce drizzled on it. When he gets the co-pay bill of $50, he whips out his checkbook and with a flourish signs the check and everything is all right with the world. Oh, and his personal physician orders a thousand tests and confirms that the cardiologists in Hawaii were indeed right...there's nothing wrong with Rush's heart.
Really? Nothing wrong with his heart? Just like any other patient?
I'm guessing, odds being what they are, that on that very day at that same hospital, some poor slob (we'll call him Tanaki) came in with chest pains. Unfortunately, Tanaki is one of the 30 million (16 million? 42 million? Who knows?) people in our country who have no health care insurance.
Tanaki was parked in the ER for a couple of hours, then taken to a "triage" room where he cooled his heels for a couple more hours. (Oh, I forgot, the minute Tanaki came in the ER door, he was asked to show his proof of insurance and, barring that, some proof of income, so they would know he can pay.)
Then they ran an EKG by a tech who is new on the job (it's a holiday, remember, and the skeleton crew AREN'T what you'd call the most experienced pros) and the EKG was read after a time by a radiologist or cardiologist who is also new. They can't admit Tanaki 'cause there's nothing wrong with his heart, just like Rush. They can't hold him over for observation because, unlike Rush, he has no health care insurance.
Tanaki goes home with the same list of instructions. Lose weight. Eat healthy. Have your personal physician check you out. Exercise.
Except that Tanaki can't afford a personal trainer, nor a posh gym. Tanaki works 75 hours a week at two jobs, neither of which provide insurance because he's not "full time". Tanaki has no personal physician and he can't afford the expensive meat and the organic vegetables, etc. He was presented with a bill for a bazillion dollars upon leaving the hospital. He and his disabled wife stress about how to pay this bill off, a little bit at a time. With the $50 per month they have to squeeze out of their budget, they figure they'll be about 122 when they finally pay it off. Oh, and now, he has a "pre-existing condition."
Perhaps Rush should check back into the hospital and have another full work-up. 'Cause there's definitely something wrong with his heart. Not to mention his brain, but that's another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)