Ron Paul and the broken man

Much has been made about the exchange between Ron Paul and the moderator in the latest Republican primary debate about an uninsured person. I think a good deal of ugliness was displayed by the crowd, but I think something more important slipped by unnoticed.

If you didn't see the debate, here is a quick setup. The question was about a 30 year old who didn't have insurance (by choice) and get gets seriously injured. What happens then? Who pays for his care?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

[moderator indicates that it is too late for that, person is hurt and needs care]
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

And here is the point…the guy should expect churches, friends, neighbors to care for him. Wait…what?

I am kind of confused here. So where does the arbitrary line get draw on who we should help? We tend to have an affinity for people in our town too…our state…(wait for it)…OUR NATION. Shouldn't we be willing to help to others in our nation? And isn't that kind how it is set up now?

I know from personal experience, for example, that there a bunch of fuckwits in Georgia (sorry to pick on you Georgia) that I don't like at all. But it also pains me to think of people in Georgia going hungry or suffering for lack of medical care. So on an individual basis I might not be pleased about who receives my largess (n times removed) but collectively it is something I want to happen.

Is it an issue of scale? How is a church funded? Everybody gives a little, right? That can't work on a larger scale? We can't all give a little so that everybody has a net?

The scenario only addresses a catastrophic occurrence, but what about chronic conditions like lupus, Alzheimer's, MS, whatever? My neighbor is going to finance my care for the rest of my life? What about those who don't belong to a church, or live in rural or isolated areas? And what if the people in the next town over find out that that your church provides better care than their own? Saying "churches, friends and neighbors" sure does sound good, but its unworkable. And sure the hospital he worked at didn't turn people away…I am sure it also took some government aid to be able to care for those who didn't pay.

To me it all stems from an inability to overcome basic selfishness and the whole we/they mentality.

Redefining rape

A little background first:

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2183-Redefining-Rape

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dem-co-sponsor-of-forcible-rape-law-not-talking.php

This is how the newly Republican House is going to spend their time? This is the type of thing people wanted? I thought they were elected on fiscal responsibility (Hah!). Sigh.

Anyway, more to the point. The only purpose here is to restrict access to abortions.

A friend mentioned "We're a society that knows enough to differentiate between kinds of murders - I don't see why rape should be any different, really. Though I'm certain I don't want those hateful fucks drawing the lines." I certainly agree with the last part of his sentiment but not fully with what comes before.

We don't actaully differentiate murder; a dead body is a dead body. We differentiate the circumstance of murder. And I am not entirely certain that the line they are trying to draw makes any sense. The most common definitions (and my personal understanding of the concept since I was able to understand it) of rape all state its forced nature making "forcible rape" a useless redundancy.

It is just this that should make everyone suspect as to the nature of what is trying to be done here. The Democratic co-sponsor is tragically from my state and clearly his Catholic background drives his support. The GOP, party of the self-made man and non-governmental interference (except in areas that involve our naughty bits), continues to tilt at this windmill with absolutely zero concern for consequence.

This is why I support the NCSE

Don't Diss Darwin campaign to go along with Ray (dumbass) Comfort's distribution of his adulterated version of "Origin of Species".

I went to a funeral the other day.

It was for the father of a very close friend who had finally succumbed after being ill for several years with a series of serious health conditions. Even though I can sometime be wont to buck some nonsensical social customs, even I understand, regardless of belief, the importance of showing up for simple support of those you care about. Just to remind them that you are there for them and that you care.

It was also the first funeral I have been to in a while and I find something has changed.

I find that I no longer have any tolerance for this nonsense.

The Pastor was a nice woman, giving an innocuous and pleasant service claiming the availability of everlasting life, blah, blah. I am sure people found comfort as they considered their own mortality, where funeral attendance invariably leads. Prior to this, I had pretty much always been able to let it slide by, just sort of ignoring it on the grounds of it being harmless fantasy to comfort people. But that just didn't happen.

This time I found the whole thing incredibly childish. Listening to an adult proffering this fairy tale to other adults as fact in a time of very real emotional distress was absolutely comedic if not also tragic. I looked around with some dismay realizing that it was likely that a very good percentage of the people I was sitting with actually took this silliness to heart. That there was a magic man in the sky who was going to make them live forever and that he was good even though he had visited a series for cruel turns on the deceased. And if we just say the magic incantation, we will live forever too.

I understand the cause. It is the simple fear of death, the horror of ceasing to be. I can't say I am thrilled by the idea of dying but I think I have accepted it as a simple part of life. I can't say the concept troubles me that much. I know that lots of people aren't there yet (or will never be). And I am not really placing this on their heads. Come think of it, I really can't place it on the pastor's head either. I am sure she truly thinks it is a good thing and it helps. But I can't believe that this collective lie is good or productive. Rather than focus on this fairy tale later existence, we should focus on this one to make it better for us now and for those who come after.

I am afraid this this is just the beginning as I think I am entering one of those time periods in life when things bunch up, wedding of friends, baby announcements, and now the passing of friends parents.

Pandora's (Jewelry) Box

An interest of mine is bad advertising. I can't help but try to figure out how or why some advertising gets past somebody with some sense saying "Uh, no, I don't think so".

What brings this up today is I heard an ad for Jareds (don't know if that is a local jewelry chain or national) advertising "Pandora Jewelry".

Really?

Pandora? You want your product (generally) for women associated with the woman who released all the evils into the world? Next up will be Lucrezia Borgia marriage hints...

Kudos to Congressman Barney Frank.

The video shows him treating an anti-healthcare reform wingnut exactly how they should be treated (though this should not be limited to just that fringe). Dismissal, disdain, and contempt.



I think this is awesome not because I disagree with the woman's position but rather that politeness is overrated. We should treat stupid and patently wrong thinking like it is stupid and patently wrong. So much "niceness" has been wasted on these (and other) extremists and it gives them a credibility they do not deserve.

You want to have a discussion over differing viewpoints? Great! You want to do it where you get to ignore fact, reason, and logic but I don't? No way. Free speech doesn't include anything about having to respect what you say, just your right to say it.

Put to the test

My father recently developed a serious heart problem (now under control, thankfully). I got a panicked call letting me know that he had collapsed in a VA hospital parking lot (at least he has the sense to pick a quality location) and the only details we got were that it was some sort of heart failure causing dangerously low blood pressure and a heart rate of ~20 when they got him in the E.R. No information on whether he was stable, dead, whatever.

So, understandably, on the ride to the hospital, I had to consider the possibility of him dying or already being gone. I am surpised at how readily I accepted the notion. Not that I didn't care or find it sad, but rather its just normal. People die.

I have to admit that I am generally more affected by a pet death than people (it just seems unfair for pets - yes, completely irrational, I know, I'm not perfect) but I have not lost a parent and always kind of assumed that it is a case that would be different.

I would have been surprised if I had them , but no thoughts of afterlife, god, or anything like that really occurred to me. I looked at it as the finality that death is and considered what I might like to say about him, what I would want other people to know and remember. I bring this up as I have had believers claim that my view would change when someone like a parent died. Sorry, it didn't.

Happily when we got to the hospital they had stabilized him, put it a temporary pacemaker and he was awake, alert, and talkative (if a bit drained and uncomfortable). An order of magnitude better than was I was expecting.