(Disclosure: There is no scientific evidence to back this up, nor is this an assertion that everyone who lives in the areas mentioned "stupid." Obviously, this is satire. Figure it out, people.)
Just before I moved to Los Angeles, I flew my boyfriend out to Tennessee to make the cross country drive with me. When he landed at Tri-Cities Airport in what amounted to an oversized crop duster, he was shocked at the nearly palatial McMansions that sat on ridiculously large plots of undeveloped land.
Born and raised in California, he was unused to seeing such vast areas of land without some sort of covering, be that houses or crops. Imagine his surprise when he realized that these plots of land could be purchased for prices that stopped at six digits.
To me, this was no surprise.
I have moved forty-two times in my life, and what I've learned over the course of those travels is that land is cheap in areas where the people are stupid.
It's not even that they haven't graduated high school, can't read, or have no functional brain power - it's that they continue to votes in ways that work against their own interests for one reason or another. This reason is usually based on "morals" or "religious conviction."
There are many reasons why the American South has not fully recovered from the Civil War, economically speaking, but the underlying cause of all these symptoms is that people in the South are less densely populated. This creates a whole range of problems: without dense populations, it's difficult to create centralized business ventures; without adequate public transportation, travel is prohibitive; medical resources and providers are more spread out, creating access issues. The list goes on.
But, above all is the fact that these are areas where the people by and large continue to vote against their own self-interests. And again, this goes back to the lack of population density.
Poverty and religion go hand in hand. In areas of the world where poverty is high, educational success is low, and wages are low, religion serves a very valuable purpose - it provides hope. The hope that there is a reward at the end of the road for all of your troubles is almost necessary for survival. To live without hope and faith makes life more difficult because it forces people to confront the fact that they are ultimately in control of their destinies, and that no one and nothing is waiting for them when they die to give them the good life.
Heaven is a terrible tease - it promises that if you live a good, Godlike life, free of worldly vices, you will be rewarded.
It is easy, therefore, to see how people who rely on religion for comfort can be so easily manipulated. If they are willing to believe that, politicians must say, they'll believe anything.
And so, we come to their legislative initiatives:
So-called "Personhood Amendments" are a prime example of how a social issue seems to be more important to conservative legislators than issues that might actually improve the lives of their constituents.
For people keeping track, the number of abortions performed in the United States has actually dropped since the Roe v. Wade decision. Yes, that's right...the number of abortions has dropped. Steadily. Almost 9% in a single decade (the 2000s).
Now, this fact doesn't get out there. Instead, we're fed a false narrative by manipulative Conservatives (is there any other kind, really?) who would have us believe that woman are flocking to abortion clinics in droves. Veritable hordes of women are swarming abortion clinics to have their poor decision removed from them by means of life threatening butchery at the hands of evil, godless barbarians hellbent on destroying any potential life that could grow up to be a fine, upstanding Christian!!!
But, no. Abortions have dropped to 1976 levels of 1.2 million per year.
So, the truth is that, despite living in a country that's waging a "War on Religion" (another stupid belief), the number of abortions has dropped.
*sighs*
The sad thing is that such a minute problem becomes a giant issue because people are stupid and easily manipulated. When Conservatives get on stage and talk about "American Exceptionalism," they're talking about a nation that ranks 20th in the Education Index. 20th. We're not exceptional. In fact, most of Europe is exceptional. Hell, comparatively, we're not even literate.
And here, again, we have the reality that people in America are stupid and easily manipulated. Only in America could going to a top-notch university be considered "Elitism."
Only in America can someone like Sarah Palin become a political superstar when in any other educated country in the world, she would be laughed out of the room. It truly is a testament to American stupidity that we idolize Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle, Jan Brewer, and Rick Perry. If these are the "best and brightest," our future is looking bleak.
Here's a hint, America: being able to read, write, perform basic math, and understand science does not make you an elitist - it makes you smart. This is something for which we should strive, and when any politician tells you we should do away with the Department of Education, you should pelt them with rotting cabbage.
So, to end this rant, I will go back to where I started. Land is cheap where people are stupid. If you want to own a lot of land with a giant house far larger than anything you actually need, just move to a place where people are easily manipulated politically, and you're very likely to find the cheapest land in all the land.
And the land will stay cheap...until they get smart.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why Best Buy is Often the Worst Buy
I have a shopping addiction. There. I've admitted it.
Whenever I have money and I want something, I'll have it in my hands within the week. This is a terrible habit, but it's one that has followed me my whole life.
I have no self-control when it comes to shopping, and when I think back to when I first got out on my own, I remember frequenting Best Buy in Knoxville, TN to satisfy all of my multi-media shopping binges.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I came across this article, today:
I wish I could say that I'm dismayed or surprised by this article, but I'm not. I've been noticing Best Buy's decline for the past six years, and have communicated this dismay to the corporate structure and local managers (at many stores) dozens of times.
I won't paraphrase the article by repeating it verbatim, but here are my experiences with Best Buy over time:
I first began shopping at Best Buy in 2002 when I lived in Knoxville, TN. I bought my first personally purchased DVD player, and literally dozens of DVDs, there. I would go at least once a week after my shift at Famous Dave's or Macaroni Grill and pick up a new release on DVD or a new video game. The staff knew me personally, and could always count on me to drop $100 there on every visit.
When I moved to Atlanta, however, I didn't have access to a local Best Buy. Hell, I didn't even know where one was. So, I switched my purchasing dollars to Borders. There, I could purchase movies AND books. I did find a Best Buy near where I worked, but when I went, the experience was markedly different.
I once was physically bowled over by one of the Atlanta Falcons' players who was doing some stupid recorded shopping trip to show how he spent his millions. After running me over, instead of apologizing to me, he told me to watch where I was walking (I had been standing still), and then asked me if I knew who he was. I told him I had no idea who the hell he was, but that he was a dick. When he told me he was an Atlanta Falcon, I said, "Whatever. I'm a Patriots fan."
This experience pretty much ended my "good times" with Best Buy.
The next time I went to a Best Buy was in December of 2005 when I went to purchase a computer. At this point, the company began to change...
Gone was the attractive staff that actually knew what they were selling, and in their place were ungroomed idiot boys who had no clue how to differentiate between a television and a computer monitor. This trend continued, and as the staff got less knowledgable, the product offerings got less affordable.
I remember when DVDs, CDs, and games were reasonably priced - Best Buy, however, believes that these items come at a premium.
Here's a cost comparison:
Fright Night (2011) 3-D Blu-Ray, DVD, Blu-Ray Combo Pack -
List Price: $49.99 (Ridiculous to being with)
Amazon: $30.99
Best Buy: $34.99
It seems like a small difference, but that makes a BIG difference. That's just off the Best Buy website. In the store, I can almost guarantee you that the price would be $39.99.
Any chance that Best Buy gets to jack up its in-store prices, it takes, and then it wonders why consumers don't buy small electronics in their stores? Figure it out!
That doesn't even begin to cover the fact that the stores are ridiculously disorganized. Aisles are oddly placed, and products are barely alphabetized. Appliances are stacked on top of one another like a game of Jenga, and the television section is filled with TVs on the blink.
None of the employees seem qualified to handle money, much less answer technical questions about products.
Here's a hint to all of the specialty electronics stores - if you hire qualified people and pay them well, you will have customers who are happy with the services you offer. If you hire idiots, cut your product supply, and focus only on your bottom line, you will lose customers. It's easy.
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Free Market That Fixes Nothing
My favorite arguments against single-payer healthcare are all on display on this webpage designed to provide absolute idiots with talking points:
Single-Payer Health Care Does Not Work
The best thing about all seven of these false accusations is the inconvenient truth that they are all currently present in the United States' current approach to healthcare, even after Obamacare was passed to reformhealthcare insurance.
1.) We already ration care - and we do so based on income (read: "ability to pay"). If you get sick or injured and you have shit tons of money, you are likely to receive care by highly-paid specialists at the "best" hospitals and receive five-star service in a private room that looks more like a tile-floored hotel room than a hospital.
If, however, you get sick or injured and you earn a middle-to-lower class income, you can expect to pay most of a month or year's wages to sit for over an hour in an overcrowded waiting room at an understaffed hospital and see an overworked, overstressed doctor for less than ten minutes, and you may spend that wait sitting on a gurney in a hallway because the rooms are all filled.
But, according to idiots, single-payer healthcare will lead to the rationing of care.
2.) The charge that single-payer healthcare would not save money must exist in some magical space where math doesn't exist. Maybe the people who make this idiotic (not to mention statistically and empirically false) argument were those who Rick Santorum praises for being home schooled, because clearly they never learned the basic math skills that indicate "Greater Than" and "Less Than."
Here's is a chart showing a fun set of actual facts:
The United States spends 61% more money, per capita, than the next highest spender, Switzerland (based on 2008 figures - this number continues to increase).
The basis of this argument is that so much money is wasted on fraudulent cases, that it can't possibly cost less than our current system. Ironically, we spend more money per capita than every other nation in the world, and literally twice as much money as the vast majority of nations.
3.) Compensation of physicians and healthcare providers is a serious issue...and it should be considering a staggering 87.6% of American medical school graduates had outstanding educational loans averaging $129,943 (2006).
That's right...averaging. In the all-too-likely even that the math idiots who level other money-based charges against single-payer healthcare are formulating the arguments in support of this, just shoot them in the forehead. They're likely to pay less in health care costs...because they'll be dead.
I'm all in favor of physicians and healthcare providers being paid generous salaries for their services. I am not in favor, however, of receiving subpar services, being ignored for six-to-eight hours before I see someone, and being sent home misdiagnosed and paying them out the ass for it.
We already compensate our healthcare providers exponentially more so than any other country in the world, and for what? It's certainly not for...
4.) ...The quality of care we receive in this nation is not only not "the best in the world," it isn't even the "better than average"in the world. By every metric of comparison, we are one of the WORST providers of healthcare in the industrialized world...and we pay more for it than any other country in the entire world.
However, Conservatives and TeaTards would have us believe that we are receiving top-notch care. They are lying to you, and doing it with a straight face.
Let me stress this: WE are not receiving top-notch care; the rich are receiving top-notch care. The rest of us are receiving subpar services and paying more for it than anyone else in the entire world.
5.) Medical decisions are already taken away from doctors and patients by insurance companies who determine what procedures, tests, and medications they will cover. That is a fact. The government is consistently willing to pay for nearly any procedure, test, and treatment that any of the beneficiaries of our already existing government-run healthcare services require, and expanding that coverage to all citizens won't change that.
This is not only a lie, it's completely devoid of reality.
6.) Medical research is already hampered in this country because of who is funding it -
63.7% of funding for research comes from the private sector - not the government.
Here's a hint: the private sector has absolutely not interest in making people better.
Who are the "private sector?" Pharmaceutical companies.
That's right, the people who stand to profit most from your illness are the ones pulling the strings of research.
We pay more money for pharmaceutical products (prescription drugs) than any other nation in the entire world. We also have the highest incidence of chronic illnesses, preventable diseases, and weight-related illnesses in the entire world. We have the worst health habits of any country in the entire world. We have the fattest people in the entire world.
It is not size-ist to say that we are the fattest, least healthy industrialized nation in the entire world; it is factual. My apologies to anyone who feels discriminated against because they cannot fit in a booth at a restaurant, and so much use not one, but two chairs (yes...I have seen this in person; it's disgusting).
We spend more money on research and development than any other country in the entire world, and for all that research and development, we cannot seem to come up with adequate treatments to solve the crises which nearly every other country has managed to address.
7.) The sad truth is that many countries with single-payer healthcare are moving toward more privatized models...in no small part because of the same idiots who fight against those programs in the United States.
It should come as no shock that the nations who are moving away (albeit slowly) from single-payer systems are the same ones who have...wait for it...CONSERVATIVE governments currently in power.
These are the people whose Ayn Rand-ian vision of human civilization trump reality, facts, and science. For these people, actual facts, figures, and statistics mean nothing - the talking points and propaganda trumps all logic.
Our nation is not recovering from our financial crisis, and even worse times are to come. Those who would tell you otherwise are lying to you, and sadly, those lies are being issued from the same party that claims to be progressive; the same party who, when they had the chance, chose to reform insurance instead of reforming ACTUAL healthcare in an effort to appease the TeaTards and Conservatives...and they did so unsuccessfully.
If we want to deal with the upcoming healthcare-induced fiscal crisis, we need to address the problem by actively calling out the lies of those who would profit from the misery, suffering, and sickness of all but the richest in our nation. We must not only call them out, we must actively attack these lies at their source, drag the lies out in public, and draw and quarter them.
Single-Payer Health Care Does Not Work
The best thing about all seven of these false accusations is the inconvenient truth that they are all currently present in the United States' current approach to healthcare, even after Obamacare was passed to reform
1.) We already ration care - and we do so based on income (read: "ability to pay"). If you get sick or injured and you have shit tons of money, you are likely to receive care by highly-paid specialists at the "best" hospitals and receive five-star service in a private room that looks more like a tile-floored hotel room than a hospital.
If, however, you get sick or injured and you earn a middle-to-lower class income, you can expect to pay most of a month or year's wages to sit for over an hour in an overcrowded waiting room at an understaffed hospital and see an overworked, overstressed doctor for less than ten minutes, and you may spend that wait sitting on a gurney in a hallway because the rooms are all filled.
But, according to idiots, single-payer healthcare will lead to the rationing of care.
2.) The charge that single-payer healthcare would not save money must exist in some magical space where math doesn't exist. Maybe the people who make this idiotic (not to mention statistically and empirically false) argument were those who Rick Santorum praises for being home schooled, because clearly they never learned the basic math skills that indicate "Greater Than" and "Less Than."
Here's is a chart showing a fun set of actual facts:
The United States spends 61% more money, per capita, than the next highest spender, Switzerland (based on 2008 figures - this number continues to increase).
The basis of this argument is that so much money is wasted on fraudulent cases, that it can't possibly cost less than our current system. Ironically, we spend more money per capita than every other nation in the world, and literally twice as much money as the vast majority of nations.
3.) Compensation of physicians and healthcare providers is a serious issue...and it should be considering a staggering 87.6% of American medical school graduates had outstanding educational loans averaging $129,943 (2006).
That's right...averaging. In the all-too-likely even that the math idiots who level other money-based charges against single-payer healthcare are formulating the arguments in support of this, just shoot them in the forehead. They're likely to pay less in health care costs...because they'll be dead.
I'm all in favor of physicians and healthcare providers being paid generous salaries for their services. I am not in favor, however, of receiving subpar services, being ignored for six-to-eight hours before I see someone, and being sent home misdiagnosed and paying them out the ass for it.
We already compensate our healthcare providers exponentially more so than any other country in the world, and for what? It's certainly not for...
4.) ...The quality of care we receive in this nation is not only not "the best in the world," it isn't even the "better than average"in the world. By every metric of comparison, we are one of the WORST providers of healthcare in the industrialized world...and we pay more for it than any other country in the entire world.
However, Conservatives and TeaTards would have us believe that we are receiving top-notch care. They are lying to you, and doing it with a straight face.
Let me stress this: WE are not receiving top-notch care; the rich are receiving top-notch care. The rest of us are receiving subpar services and paying more for it than anyone else in the entire world.
5.) Medical decisions are already taken away from doctors and patients by insurance companies who determine what procedures, tests, and medications they will cover. That is a fact. The government is consistently willing to pay for nearly any procedure, test, and treatment that any of the beneficiaries of our already existing government-run healthcare services require, and expanding that coverage to all citizens won't change that.
This is not only a lie, it's completely devoid of reality.
6.) Medical research is already hampered in this country because of who is funding it -
63.7% of funding for research comes from the private sector - not the government.
Here's a hint: the private sector has absolutely not interest in making people better.
Who are the "private sector?" Pharmaceutical companies.
That's right, the people who stand to profit most from your illness are the ones pulling the strings of research.
We pay more money for pharmaceutical products (prescription drugs) than any other nation in the entire world. We also have the highest incidence of chronic illnesses, preventable diseases, and weight-related illnesses in the entire world. We have the worst health habits of any country in the entire world. We have the fattest people in the entire world.
It is not size-ist to say that we are the fattest, least healthy industrialized nation in the entire world; it is factual. My apologies to anyone who feels discriminated against because they cannot fit in a booth at a restaurant, and so much use not one, but two chairs (yes...I have seen this in person; it's disgusting).
We spend more money on research and development than any other country in the entire world, and for all that research and development, we cannot seem to come up with adequate treatments to solve the crises which nearly every other country has managed to address.
7.) The sad truth is that many countries with single-payer healthcare are moving toward more privatized models...in no small part because of the same idiots who fight against those programs in the United States.
It should come as no shock that the nations who are moving away (albeit slowly) from single-payer systems are the same ones who have...wait for it...CONSERVATIVE governments currently in power.
These are the people whose Ayn Rand-ian vision of human civilization trump reality, facts, and science. For these people, actual facts, figures, and statistics mean nothing - the talking points and propaganda trumps all logic.
Our nation is not recovering from our financial crisis, and even worse times are to come. Those who would tell you otherwise are lying to you, and sadly, those lies are being issued from the same party that claims to be progressive; the same party who, when they had the chance, chose to reform insurance instead of reforming ACTUAL healthcare in an effort to appease the TeaTards and Conservatives...and they did so unsuccessfully.
If we want to deal with the upcoming healthcare-induced fiscal crisis, we need to address the problem by actively calling out the lies of those who would profit from the misery, suffering, and sickness of all but the richest in our nation. We must not only call them out, we must actively attack these lies at their source, drag the lies out in public, and draw and quarter them.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
What's Behind the Surge of Santorum
The news over the past two weeks has been the same on every channel: though Mitt Romney is the inevitable candidate (remember that phrase, Democrats?), Santorum has been surging.
The surge of Santorum, which neither the media nor bloggers can stop themselves from saying (likely with the pun intended), seems to come from the fact that "likely Republican voters" are split into people who want to win an election and those who want to run an ideologue. It's obvious who will win the nomination, right?
Absolutely not.
Santorum has the unique ability to appeal to the dumbest person in the room because he plays to their sensibilities - say the most outlandish thing possible, talk up the religious angle, and do it while being charming. Santorum is, of course, the currentNot-Mormon Not-Romney candidate, and it's no surprise that the GOTea's most fervently rabid right-wing conservatives are flocking to him.
The GOTea has a habit of shooting itself in the collective foot by nominating candidates who will either immediately or in the long run drag them down into the depths of irrelevance. Such recent examples include Christine "I Am Not a Witch" O'Donnell, Rick "Umm...umm...umm..." Perry, and Sharron "You Look Like Asians, To Me" Angle.
In each of the above examples, these candidates were portrayed as the rising stars of the Republican party, embodying the ideals and beliefs so strongly held by its membership, which doesn't bode well, considering none of them seemed able to control the sheer tsunami of "stupid" with which they kept pounding our political shores.
It should be noted that, by and large, the GOP continues to run primarily male candidates for elected office, and I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the GOP being an "Old Boys Club," but more with the fact that almost every example of a popular conservative female has turned out to be one or both of the following: (1.) Profoundly stupid; (2.) Batshit crazy.
Let's take stock of some of those candidates -
(1.) Michele Bachmann - Michele isn't stupid. She knows how to play a room like nobody's business. She is, however, batshit crazy. She was called the "Queen of Rage" by Newsweek Magazine (on their cover - the phrase appears nowhere in its article), and was portrayed in the photo as a crazy person. Not far off the mark, there, Newsweek. Michele is primarily a 2.
(2.) Jan Brewer - Jan represents the other side of that coin. What she says isn't so much crazy as what she does in office. Brewer has yet to make a political decision that hasn't been met with a lawsuit (that's a generalization; don't bother fact checking it), and managed to get reelected despite a disastrous debate performance that didn't seem to make a dent in her lead, whatsoever. Not surprising given Arizona's penchant for anti-immigrant sentiment. Jan Brewer seems unable to form coherent policies, much less speak in a manner that leaves her looking like a Rhodes Scholar, so that makes her primarily a 1.
(3.) Sarah Palin - Sarah presents observers with an interesting conundrum: is she stupid or crazy? My guess is a little bit of both. Certainly, she is savvy - no one can drum up the support of the undereducated like Sarah Palin. She can work a room, easily, but does so by putting on a show that displays her lack of intellectual curiosity. To watch her speak in public is to watch someone play a game of LSD-addled mad libs; her resignation speech was more like a poetry slam than an actual speech, only in that it was incomprehensible. Sarah is both crazy and stupid, which whips "likely Republican voters" into a mullet fantasia, and they will run to her defense at a moment's notice.
These three women are not, of course, representative of the entire spectrum of conservative women. I'm certain there are several quite intelligent, completely sane conservative women out there who would be a credit to their sex. These women, however, are not what the GOTea wants, right now. They want an ideologue; they want someone who won't "compromise" their ideals and beliefs for the greater good; they want someone to stand up for...well...something.
The real reason behind our current surge of Santorum is that he's not the craziest (Paul), he's not the most educated (Gingrich), and he's not a Mormon (Romney). Even more to the point is that he is favored amongst "likely Republican voters," which sounds strange to me, given the considerably lower voter turnout to from the last election cycle.
For a party who claims that the Obama Administration is disastrous for our nation, they seem equally unenthused about their candidates...and not without reason. The extended primary season does them no favors, and the endless series of debates has done nothing more than force them into a situation where they can't help but say something crazy or stupid. It's hard to give the same answers over and over, again, and expect to attract new people in the age of the "24-hour news cycle" (we say this, but I'll be damned if I can ever find a news site that publishes news between the hours of 9 PM and 9 AM).
The GOTea candidates have no choice but to say something crazy or stupid at these debates, because it's the only way they're going to catch the attention of EVERY likely voter. With any luck, they believe they'll manage to reach out to another crazy or stupid person who shares their belief, and they'll win a vote in the general election.
This strategy rarely works. Despite what my faux conservative friend tells me, the GOP candidate really shouldn't provide much of a challenge to Obama in the presidential election. He already has all of his best attack material on video, and the best part is that he didn't have to say a single word to get it.
The surge of Santorum, which neither the media nor bloggers can stop themselves from saying (likely with the pun intended), seems to come from the fact that "likely Republican voters" are split into people who want to win an election and those who want to run an ideologue. It's obvious who will win the nomination, right?
Absolutely not.
Santorum has the unique ability to appeal to the dumbest person in the room because he plays to their sensibilities - say the most outlandish thing possible, talk up the religious angle, and do it while being charming. Santorum is, of course, the current
The GOTea has a habit of shooting itself in the collective foot by nominating candidates who will either immediately or in the long run drag them down into the depths of irrelevance. Such recent examples include Christine "I Am Not a Witch" O'Donnell, Rick "Umm...umm...umm..." Perry, and Sharron "You Look Like Asians, To Me" Angle.
In each of the above examples, these candidates were portrayed as the rising stars of the Republican party, embodying the ideals and beliefs so strongly held by its membership, which doesn't bode well, considering none of them seemed able to control the sheer tsunami of "stupid" with which they kept pounding our political shores.
It should be noted that, by and large, the GOP continues to run primarily male candidates for elected office, and I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the GOP being an "Old Boys Club," but more with the fact that almost every example of a popular conservative female has turned out to be one or both of the following: (1.) Profoundly stupid; (2.) Batshit crazy.
Let's take stock of some of those candidates -
(1.) Michele Bachmann - Michele isn't stupid. She knows how to play a room like nobody's business. She is, however, batshit crazy. She was called the "Queen of Rage" by Newsweek Magazine (on their cover - the phrase appears nowhere in its article), and was portrayed in the photo as a crazy person. Not far off the mark, there, Newsweek. Michele is primarily a 2.
(2.) Jan Brewer - Jan represents the other side of that coin. What she says isn't so much crazy as what she does in office. Brewer has yet to make a political decision that hasn't been met with a lawsuit (that's a generalization; don't bother fact checking it), and managed to get reelected despite a disastrous debate performance that didn't seem to make a dent in her lead, whatsoever. Not surprising given Arizona's penchant for anti-immigrant sentiment. Jan Brewer seems unable to form coherent policies, much less speak in a manner that leaves her looking like a Rhodes Scholar, so that makes her primarily a 1.
(3.) Sarah Palin - Sarah presents observers with an interesting conundrum: is she stupid or crazy? My guess is a little bit of both. Certainly, she is savvy - no one can drum up the support of the undereducated like Sarah Palin. She can work a room, easily, but does so by putting on a show that displays her lack of intellectual curiosity. To watch her speak in public is to watch someone play a game of LSD-addled mad libs; her resignation speech was more like a poetry slam than an actual speech, only in that it was incomprehensible. Sarah is both crazy and stupid, which whips "likely Republican voters" into a mullet fantasia, and they will run to her defense at a moment's notice.
These three women are not, of course, representative of the entire spectrum of conservative women. I'm certain there are several quite intelligent, completely sane conservative women out there who would be a credit to their sex. These women, however, are not what the GOTea wants, right now. They want an ideologue; they want someone who won't "compromise" their ideals and beliefs for the greater good; they want someone to stand up for...well...something.
The real reason behind our current surge of Santorum is that he's not the craziest (Paul), he's not the most educated (Gingrich), and he's not a Mormon (Romney). Even more to the point is that he is favored amongst "likely Republican voters," which sounds strange to me, given the considerably lower voter turnout to from the last election cycle.
For a party who claims that the Obama Administration is disastrous for our nation, they seem equally unenthused about their candidates...and not without reason. The extended primary season does them no favors, and the endless series of debates has done nothing more than force them into a situation where they can't help but say something crazy or stupid. It's hard to give the same answers over and over, again, and expect to attract new people in the age of the "24-hour news cycle" (we say this, but I'll be damned if I can ever find a news site that publishes news between the hours of 9 PM and 9 AM).
The GOTea candidates have no choice but to say something crazy or stupid at these debates, because it's the only way they're going to catch the attention of EVERY likely voter. With any luck, they believe they'll manage to reach out to another crazy or stupid person who shares their belief, and they'll win a vote in the general election.
This strategy rarely works. Despite what my faux conservative friend tells me, the GOP candidate really shouldn't provide much of a challenge to Obama in the presidential election. He already has all of his best attack material on video, and the best part is that he didn't have to say a single word to get it.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Coming This Week:
UPDATE (02/09/12):
Unfortunately, Brandon Macsata will be unable to provide an article at this time, due to time constraints. As a business owner and political advocate, Brandon is consistently one of the busiest people I know, and this was a reality we had discussed prior to going forward with this venture. I certainly do hope that he will be able to find some free time in the future to provide us with his insights, and look forward to his input and scholarship.
-Marcus J. Hopkins
02/09/12
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Rarely have sixteen words been so fervently debated as these, and yet, we seem no closer to determining exactly how these words were meant to be or should be interpreted. This seemingly simple statement has been and will continue to be the source of endless arguments on either side of the debate - what actually constitutes a violation of this amendment, and where does the line exist between allowing religious freedom and showing preferential treatment to one religion?
This week, I will be focusing on several issues of this nature, and in order to provide a counterpoint to my analyses and positions, I have asked a friend of mine, Brandon Macsata, to write companion pieces representing a differing point of view.
In doing so, I hope to demonstrate two things: (1.) How two people with disparate views can disagree with one another on fundamental issues without relying on arguments of Pathos or personal attacks, and still remain friends; (2.) How issues involving religious freedom are viewed through two vastly different interpretations of the First Amendment.
I intend to cover the following issues:
1.) The recent decision by Health & Human Services to require religious organizations to provide coverage for contraceptives, regardless of their beliefs.
2.) The inception and proliferation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in regards to Federal spending.
3.) The influence of religion in the political arena, the players involved, the perceived and actual power they wield, and the benefits and repercussions of their involvement.
In the name of full disclosure, Mr. Macsata and I have been friends since 2007, and have both debated these topics with each other, as well as countless others, ad nauseum. In writing these counterpoint pieces, I have gone out of my way to refrain from influencing Brandon's pieces, other than to provide him with a topic and tone of the writing. We have not attempted to influence the other to make specific points in order to support our individual arguments.
I hope that my readers, few as they may be, will enjoy this series, and I look forward to hearing your points of view and continuing the conversation beyond our initial posts. If you enjoy what you're reading, please share Out of Body Politics with your friends, and help get the word out about us.
Sincerely,
Marcus J. Hopkins
Unfortunately, Brandon Macsata will be unable to provide an article at this time, due to time constraints. As a business owner and political advocate, Brandon is consistently one of the busiest people I know, and this was a reality we had discussed prior to going forward with this venture. I certainly do hope that he will be able to find some free time in the future to provide us with his insights, and look forward to his input and scholarship.
-Marcus J. Hopkins
02/09/12
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Rarely have sixteen words been so fervently debated as these, and yet, we seem no closer to determining exactly how these words were meant to be or should be interpreted. This seemingly simple statement has been and will continue to be the source of endless arguments on either side of the debate - what actually constitutes a violation of this amendment, and where does the line exist between allowing religious freedom and showing preferential treatment to one religion?
This week, I will be focusing on several issues of this nature, and in order to provide a counterpoint to my analyses and positions, I have asked a friend of mine, Brandon Macsata, to write companion pieces representing a differing point of view.
In doing so, I hope to demonstrate two things: (1.) How two people with disparate views can disagree with one another on fundamental issues without relying on arguments of Pathos or personal attacks, and still remain friends; (2.) How issues involving religious freedom are viewed through two vastly different interpretations of the First Amendment.
I intend to cover the following issues:
1.) The recent decision by Health & Human Services to require religious organizations to provide coverage for contraceptives, regardless of their beliefs.
2.) The inception and proliferation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in regards to Federal spending.
3.) The influence of religion in the political arena, the players involved, the perceived and actual power they wield, and the benefits and repercussions of their involvement.
In the name of full disclosure, Mr. Macsata and I have been friends since 2007, and have both debated these topics with each other, as well as countless others, ad nauseum. In writing these counterpoint pieces, I have gone out of my way to refrain from influencing Brandon's pieces, other than to provide him with a topic and tone of the writing. We have not attempted to influence the other to make specific points in order to support our individual arguments.
I hope that my readers, few as they may be, will enjoy this series, and I look forward to hearing your points of view and continuing the conversation beyond our initial posts. If you enjoy what you're reading, please share Out of Body Politics with your friends, and help get the word out about us.
Sincerely,
Marcus J. Hopkins
Religious Exemptions Violate the First Amendment
In the first in our series of pieces focusing on religious issues in America, I will tackle my perception of the current hubbub involving the requirement that all insurance providers cover contraceptives for women.
To better understand this issue, we must first focus on the question at hand and break it down, piece by piece:
"Does requiring all insurance providers to cover any FDA-approved contraceptive infringe upon the First Amendment rights of religious organizations who provide health care benefits to their employees?"
We'll start with the main issue of the requirement - covering contraceptives:
At this time, there are at least 26 states with laws that require insurance providers to cover any and all FDA-approved contraceptives, and 2 more (Michigan and Montana) that require the same thing as the result of an administrative decision or Attorney General ruling. This does, however, come with a few caveats.
20 of those states do provide exemptions from the requirement in their policies for insurers or employers (usually for religion). This, of course, is entirely left up to the discretion of those who wrote, passed, and initiated the laws as they stand.
Here's where I don't have a problem with that: on the state level, each legislature is able to decide how individual laws in their states apply to their citizenry; if the citizens believe that this is unfair or biased, they have the ability to contest the law (thanks to the First Amendment), and redress their grievances in a court of law. Oftentimes, this results in a court overturning all or parts of laws, and the problems get worked out.
On the Federal level, however, this does not and should not apply. When we craft laws for the entire nation to follow, the expectation is that all citizens are required to abide by those laws. One of the few exceptions to this rule has to do with conscientious objection to military service (also to do primarily with religion). Obviously, citizens still have the ability to address what they see as bias in court, though it is rarer for courts to overturn either portions of or entire laws.
Requiring all insurers and employers to provide coverage for contraceptives is not comparable to being conscripted for war. It is the provision of equal access to medical treatment for women, regardless of their convictions; whether or not they choose to personally access that coverage is up to the individual, and not the organization, to decide. This is the heart of our democracy - that individuals can make these decisions for themselves and not have them made for them by religious institutions.
Which brings me to the second issue at hand - FDA-approved contraceptives:
The primary arguments used by religious and right-to-life organizations is that contraceptives serve as abortifacients (substances that induce abortions such as mifepristone and misoprostal). This assertion is medically and scientifically incorrect.
Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices have multiple biological effects. Some of them may be the primary action of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For combined oral contraceptive and progestin-only methods, the main mechanisms are ovulation inhibition and changes in the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. The hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills, have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantations actually results from the use of these methods. Once pregnancy begins, none of these methods has an abortifacient action (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, November 1999).
Basically, contraceptives do not induce abortion. They do, however, prevent sperm from implanting an egg most of the time. They are not 100% effective; they are, however 99.6% effective. When used consistently and properly, they do help to prevent implantation from occurring. Individual circumstances, such as missing a dose, having diarrhea or vomiting as a result of a stomach illness, or using oral contraceptives in conjunction with antibiotics, can reduce the efficacy, in which case condoms or diaphragms should be used to provide greater protection from implantation.
To argue that contraceptives are abortifacients is an intellectually dishonest position because it willfully ignores scientific fact in favor of personal belief. Providing an exemption from a Federal law to religious institutions who use this argument as grounds for denying coverage is an unacceptable approach to governance.
Which brings us to the third rail - religious people use contraceptives:
It is estimated that roughly 98% of women aged 15-44 use or have used birth control methods at some point during their life. 62% of these women are currently using birth control, while 31% of these women no longer need to use it because they are infertile (Guttmacher Institute, June 2010).
This number includes...wait for it...Catholics.
The Catholic Church consistently ignores the fact that many of its adherents completely ignore the Church's teaching that contraceptives should not be used. That's not a shock for those of us who hold a realistic view of the Church, because they have historically ignored science in favor of faith. PopeHitler II Benedict XVI went so far as to give a speech in Cameroon, Africa, in which he stated that distributing and using contraceptives (in this case, condoms) increases susceptibility to contracting AIDS. This proves that he is not only out of touch with reality, but willfully lying. Eventually, the Pope decreed that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS could be okay.
Final Analysis:
Religious persons have every right to follow their core beliefs and choose not to use contraceptives. Religious organizations, however, do not have the right to refuse adherence to Federal law, as written, because they have a fundamental disagreement with science on the basis of their faith. People who argue that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon often fail to see the fact that exempting one group based on their religious affiliation is, in my opinion, a violation of the First Amendment because it shows preference to one religion over another.
Religious organizations are made up of people, but they are not, in and of themselves, people. They often pay no taxes (due to exemption - I'll cover that in a later article), and they often find themselves above the law due to loopholes that allow for religious exemption. While the argument can be made that employees can just go find another employer who will provide those benefits, this argument is not realistic in our current economic circumstance.
It is unacceptable for religious organizations to be held to a different standard from every other employer or organization; this is one of the primary tenets of our Founding Fathers, their personal beliefs, and the documents that helped establish this nation. To ignore this and provide special privileges to them is a travesty to our nationals principles of religious freedom, which include being free from religious interference in our governance.
Marcus J. Hopkins
To better understand this issue, we must first focus on the question at hand and break it down, piece by piece:
"Does requiring all insurance providers to cover any FDA-approved contraceptive infringe upon the First Amendment rights of religious organizations who provide health care benefits to their employees?"
We'll start with the main issue of the requirement - covering contraceptives:
At this time, there are at least 26 states with laws that require insurance providers to cover any and all FDA-approved contraceptives, and 2 more (Michigan and Montana) that require the same thing as the result of an administrative decision or Attorney General ruling. This does, however, come with a few caveats.
20 of those states do provide exemptions from the requirement in their policies for insurers or employers (usually for religion). This, of course, is entirely left up to the discretion of those who wrote, passed, and initiated the laws as they stand.
Here's where I don't have a problem with that: on the state level, each legislature is able to decide how individual laws in their states apply to their citizenry; if the citizens believe that this is unfair or biased, they have the ability to contest the law (thanks to the First Amendment), and redress their grievances in a court of law. Oftentimes, this results in a court overturning all or parts of laws, and the problems get worked out.
On the Federal level, however, this does not and should not apply. When we craft laws for the entire nation to follow, the expectation is that all citizens are required to abide by those laws. One of the few exceptions to this rule has to do with conscientious objection to military service (also to do primarily with religion). Obviously, citizens still have the ability to address what they see as bias in court, though it is rarer for courts to overturn either portions of or entire laws.
Requiring all insurers and employers to provide coverage for contraceptives is not comparable to being conscripted for war. It is the provision of equal access to medical treatment for women, regardless of their convictions; whether or not they choose to personally access that coverage is up to the individual, and not the organization, to decide. This is the heart of our democracy - that individuals can make these decisions for themselves and not have them made for them by religious institutions.
Which brings me to the second issue at hand - FDA-approved contraceptives:
The primary arguments used by religious and right-to-life organizations is that contraceptives serve as abortifacients (substances that induce abortions such as mifepristone and misoprostal). This assertion is medically and scientifically incorrect.
Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices have multiple biological effects. Some of them may be the primary action of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For combined oral contraceptive and progestin-only methods, the main mechanisms are ovulation inhibition and changes in the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. The hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills, have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantations actually results from the use of these methods. Once pregnancy begins, none of these methods has an abortifacient action (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, November 1999).
Basically, contraceptives do not induce abortion. They do, however, prevent sperm from implanting an egg most of the time. They are not 100% effective; they are, however 99.6% effective. When used consistently and properly, they do help to prevent implantation from occurring. Individual circumstances, such as missing a dose, having diarrhea or vomiting as a result of a stomach illness, or using oral contraceptives in conjunction with antibiotics, can reduce the efficacy, in which case condoms or diaphragms should be used to provide greater protection from implantation.
To argue that contraceptives are abortifacients is an intellectually dishonest position because it willfully ignores scientific fact in favor of personal belief. Providing an exemption from a Federal law to religious institutions who use this argument as grounds for denying coverage is an unacceptable approach to governance.
Which brings us to the third rail - religious people use contraceptives:
It is estimated that roughly 98% of women aged 15-44 use or have used birth control methods at some point during their life. 62% of these women are currently using birth control, while 31% of these women no longer need to use it because they are infertile (Guttmacher Institute, June 2010).
This number includes...wait for it...Catholics.
The Catholic Church consistently ignores the fact that many of its adherents completely ignore the Church's teaching that contraceptives should not be used. That's not a shock for those of us who hold a realistic view of the Church, because they have historically ignored science in favor of faith. Pope
Final Analysis:
Religious persons have every right to follow their core beliefs and choose not to use contraceptives. Religious organizations, however, do not have the right to refuse adherence to Federal law, as written, because they have a fundamental disagreement with science on the basis of their faith. People who argue that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon often fail to see the fact that exempting one group based on their religious affiliation is, in my opinion, a violation of the First Amendment because it shows preference to one religion over another.
Religious organizations are made up of people, but they are not, in and of themselves, people. They often pay no taxes (due to exemption - I'll cover that in a later article), and they often find themselves above the law due to loopholes that allow for religious exemption. While the argument can be made that employees can just go find another employer who will provide those benefits, this argument is not realistic in our current economic circumstance.
It is unacceptable for religious organizations to be held to a different standard from every other employer or organization; this is one of the primary tenets of our Founding Fathers, their personal beliefs, and the documents that helped establish this nation. To ignore this and provide special privileges to them is a travesty to our nationals principles of religious freedom, which include being free from religious interference in our governance.
Marcus J. Hopkins
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Price is Wrong
It's Super Bowl Sunday in 2012, and for anyone lucky enough to have a spare $2,000, you may have been able to afford the lowest priced ticket for the game. Otherwise, you're likely sitting at home or in a bar watching the game with crystal clear reception on your high definition television...for free.
The price of tickets not only for today's game, but for nearly every major (read: successful) team in the NFL, are well beyond the reach of the American sports fan. This problem is not restricted to professional football, alone, with prices skyrocketing for NBA and MLB games, as well. In our greatly recessed economy with near record unemployment numbers, the average sports fan can scarce afford to go out for food to watch the games, much less purchase an overpriced ticket to the actual games.
To add insult to injury, the NFL blackout policy stating that games must be sold out within 72 hours of the scheduled game disproportionately effect fans living in the most economically distressed areas of the country. The San Diego Chargers had almost their entire 2010 season blacked out because fans could barely afford rent and food, much less overpriced tickets, and then were unable to watch the game as far north as Los Angeles.
Super Bowl tickets weren't always so outrageously priced; as recently as 2004, the cheapest tickets were around $200. However, the growing demand by owners, managers, coaches, and athletes for eight-digit salaries and compensation packages, in addition to the increased demands of broadcasters for contracts, have priced the American fan base out of their favorite sports.
There is, however, no foreseeable change on the way. Rather than seeing a decline in tickets prices, we will continue to see prices skyrocket. Fans will watch their favorite games at home, and not in the nosebleed section, while the luxury boxes will soon begin to overtake actual seating. And why shouldn't that be the case? For who loves sports more than the bourgeois?
Umm...everyone else.
The price of tickets not only for today's game, but for nearly every major (read: successful) team in the NFL, are well beyond the reach of the American sports fan. This problem is not restricted to professional football, alone, with prices skyrocketing for NBA and MLB games, as well. In our greatly recessed economy with near record unemployment numbers, the average sports fan can scarce afford to go out for food to watch the games, much less purchase an overpriced ticket to the actual games.
To add insult to injury, the NFL blackout policy stating that games must be sold out within 72 hours of the scheduled game disproportionately effect fans living in the most economically distressed areas of the country. The San Diego Chargers had almost their entire 2010 season blacked out because fans could barely afford rent and food, much less overpriced tickets, and then were unable to watch the game as far north as Los Angeles.
Super Bowl tickets weren't always so outrageously priced; as recently as 2004, the cheapest tickets were around $200. However, the growing demand by owners, managers, coaches, and athletes for eight-digit salaries and compensation packages, in addition to the increased demands of broadcasters for contracts, have priced the American fan base out of their favorite sports.
There is, however, no foreseeable change on the way. Rather than seeing a decline in tickets prices, we will continue to see prices skyrocket. Fans will watch their favorite games at home, and not in the nosebleed section, while the luxury boxes will soon begin to overtake actual seating. And why shouldn't that be the case? For who loves sports more than the bourgeois?
Umm...everyone else.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Crumbling Before Our Jaundiced Eyes
In this year's State of the Union Address, President Obama laid forth his claim that we need to reinvest in America's infrastructure to repair our nation's "crumbling roads and bridges," and he would help facilitate that process by signing an executive order to "[clear] away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects."
What he did not address is that infrastructure goes far beyond roads and bridges. While those are an integral part of our nation's heritage from the 20th century, they are not the only problem that we face. In comparison to most developed nations, America seems built more for cars than for people. Much of this has to do with the pace and way in which our country was settled. With such a large continent of mostly arable land, rich in natural resources, America was not so easily established as other, smaller nations. It took nearly 200 years to reach the Pacific Ocean in any meaningful way (in terms of the number of settlers), and it wasn't until Manifest Destiny became the meme du jour that we decided it was God's divine will that we expand our borders until we met the ocean. This plan didn't include many Mexicans or Native Americans.
When it became clear toward the end of the 19th century that we had spread ourselves too far apart to support slow travel from one end of the country to the other, we began a series of massive transportation projects, the culmination of which came about in the 1950s with the Interstate Highway System designed to service all major U.S. cities.
And this is where America split from the rest of the world, where trains were the primary source of travel between great distances. We did something wholly American and went our own way by creating the American Auto Industry. Bound and determined to put a car in every driveway, we began expanding roads, highways, and bridges to meet our growing desire for independence from relying on the schedules of others.
Once flying became the clearly easier method of transcontinental transportation, we built airports for commercial, and later passenger flight purposes. We led the world in innovation when it came to building these airports, but maintained that our Interstates were the crown jewel of our nation's great transportation system.
I don't know what crack pipe these guys were smoking, but give me nicer airports and vehicles in which I can sleep to my destination any day over sitting my ass in traffic for two hours on the way to work in the morning.
Living in Los Angeles, I have become accustomed to my visiting friends' questions:
"Why is there no transportation to and from the airport?"
"What an inconvenient design for an airport...is there an easier way to get between terminals?"
"Is this place always under construction?"
"Why is it impossible to get any cell phone service, here?"
"Why is there no free WiFi?"
The truth is that I can provide them with few justifiable answers. Most people will admit that LAX is one of the worst airports in the nation by nearly every measurable standard. It is depressing to realize that the city that gives us Hollywood, known for the most lavish parties and awards shows, greets its domestic and international arrivals with such a monument to poor design and construction, with little in the way of the very amenities that our inner celebrity has come to expect from L.A.
Instead, every terminal seems like a never ending series of hallways, punctuated by longer hallways filled not with a variety of food and beverage options, but construction signs, poor cell phone signal, and inadequate seating to accommodate the fifth busiest airport in the U.S.
For as much time as LAX seems to spend under construction, one would think it might improve over time. One would be incorrect.
While LAX is not alone in its suckery, it is a glaring example of how little we think of our nation's infrastructure, which all seems to be designed more for utility than either aesthetics or convenience. Where other nation's developed transportation that took topography, long-term survival, and continued renewal into account, the American approach was to plod along, blast through any obstacle, and plop down a road or an airport wherever it was easiest.
What was once the crown jewel of personal travel has become anything but, with actually crumbling roads in most of the South and Midwest, rest areas better known for blowjobs and being closed than actually providing a break from driving, and airports where nothing is convenient, everything is overpriced, and flights are often overcrowded, late on departing and arriving, and staffed with employees who seem to have been trained by angry proboscis monkeys.
If we are to confront our infrastructure problems head on, we must do so in an organized and decisive manner, refusing to tolerate the whining of officials who claim they'll lose money in parking fees if we extend public transportation all the way to the airport (I'm lookin' at you, LAX), refusing to tolerate the obstruction of idiot conservatives who are determined not to build high-speed rail systems (and thus not creating new jobs), and certainly not tolerating rich assholes who don't want public transportation expanded because it will give poor people and minorities access to their posh surroundings.
The time has come to confront these roadblocks with jackhammers and dynamite so we can finally begin to fix what is so very clearly broken.
What he did not address is that infrastructure goes far beyond roads and bridges. While those are an integral part of our nation's heritage from the 20th century, they are not the only problem that we face. In comparison to most developed nations, America seems built more for cars than for people. Much of this has to do with the pace and way in which our country was settled. With such a large continent of mostly arable land, rich in natural resources, America was not so easily established as other, smaller nations. It took nearly 200 years to reach the Pacific Ocean in any meaningful way (in terms of the number of settlers), and it wasn't until Manifest Destiny became the meme du jour that we decided it was God's divine will that we expand our borders until we met the ocean. This plan didn't include many Mexicans or Native Americans.
When it became clear toward the end of the 19th century that we had spread ourselves too far apart to support slow travel from one end of the country to the other, we began a series of massive transportation projects, the culmination of which came about in the 1950s with the Interstate Highway System designed to service all major U.S. cities.
And this is where America split from the rest of the world, where trains were the primary source of travel between great distances. We did something wholly American and went our own way by creating the American Auto Industry. Bound and determined to put a car in every driveway, we began expanding roads, highways, and bridges to meet our growing desire for independence from relying on the schedules of others.
Once flying became the clearly easier method of transcontinental transportation, we built airports for commercial, and later passenger flight purposes. We led the world in innovation when it came to building these airports, but maintained that our Interstates were the crown jewel of our nation's great transportation system.
I don't know what crack pipe these guys were smoking, but give me nicer airports and vehicles in which I can sleep to my destination any day over sitting my ass in traffic for two hours on the way to work in the morning.
Living in Los Angeles, I have become accustomed to my visiting friends' questions:
"Why is there no transportation to and from the airport?"
"What an inconvenient design for an airport...is there an easier way to get between terminals?"
"Is this place always under construction?"
"Why is it impossible to get any cell phone service, here?"
"Why is there no free WiFi?"
The truth is that I can provide them with few justifiable answers. Most people will admit that LAX is one of the worst airports in the nation by nearly every measurable standard. It is depressing to realize that the city that gives us Hollywood, known for the most lavish parties and awards shows, greets its domestic and international arrivals with such a monument to poor design and construction, with little in the way of the very amenities that our inner celebrity has come to expect from L.A.
Instead, every terminal seems like a never ending series of hallways, punctuated by longer hallways filled not with a variety of food and beverage options, but construction signs, poor cell phone signal, and inadequate seating to accommodate the fifth busiest airport in the U.S.
For as much time as LAX seems to spend under construction, one would think it might improve over time. One would be incorrect.
While LAX is not alone in its suckery, it is a glaring example of how little we think of our nation's infrastructure, which all seems to be designed more for utility than either aesthetics or convenience. Where other nation's developed transportation that took topography, long-term survival, and continued renewal into account, the American approach was to plod along, blast through any obstacle, and plop down a road or an airport wherever it was easiest.
What was once the crown jewel of personal travel has become anything but, with actually crumbling roads in most of the South and Midwest, rest areas better known for blowjobs and being closed than actually providing a break from driving, and airports where nothing is convenient, everything is overpriced, and flights are often overcrowded, late on departing and arriving, and staffed with employees who seem to have been trained by angry proboscis monkeys.
If we are to confront our infrastructure problems head on, we must do so in an organized and decisive manner, refusing to tolerate the whining of officials who claim they'll lose money in parking fees if we extend public transportation all the way to the airport (I'm lookin' at you, LAX), refusing to tolerate the obstruction of idiot conservatives who are determined not to build high-speed rail systems (and thus not creating new jobs), and certainly not tolerating rich assholes who don't want public transportation expanded because it will give poor people and minorities access to their posh surroundings.
The time has come to confront these roadblocks with jackhammers and dynamite so we can finally begin to fix what is so very clearly broken.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Let 'Em Have It
In the past three days, the country's cancer and abortion advocates (on both sides of the latter issue) have been all atwitter over the decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to pull all funding grants from Planned Parenthood. The roughly $700k in grants to Planned Parenthood went to help provide cancers screenings, education, and women's health resources to underprivileged women.
Susan G. Komen is, perhaps, the best-known breast cancer foundation in the United States (if not the world), providing millions of men and women with loads of pink ribbons, clothing, bracelets, bumper stickers, cleats, and various other accoutrements that do nothing to either screen for or cure cancer.
Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has recently become known as the nation's largest provider of abortions...despite the fact that abortion services amount to roughly 3% of the services they provide to women. As per usual, no conservative has ever let little things like "facts" get in the way of their carefully crafted narrative.
The founder of Komen, Nancy Brinker, told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that "...the responses we're getting are very, very favorable."
Except, that is, from people within the Komen organization, itself. Since the decision, made in late December of 2011, became public, three top officials have resigned from the organization, though none have directly attributed their conveniently timed resignations to this issue.
Whether reactions from theChristofascists anti-family planning activists have been positive or not, the Komen brand may soon have to face the reality that their brand has been damaged, and while Komen may win this battle, Planned Parenthood will ultimately win the war and reap the rewards of their decision.
This leaves many people caught in the awkward position of whether or not to continue supporting Komen's "noble" cause of raising money for the disproportionately overfunded breast cancer lobby. In this case, I think it only proper that those who disagree with this decision take a page out of theTalibangelical American Family Association playbook: boycott.
The AFA is perhaps best known for staging hapless, misguided, and ineffective boycotts against companies who support LGBT equality. These boycotts have proved largely worthless over time, but then, they were only receiving support from theiridiots membership. A larger, more successful effort could be lobbied against Komen if those who disagree with their decision make the actually noble decision to instead donate their dollars to Planned Parenthood (the people who actually help detect and test for breast cancer).
I am not a protestor by nature. I really don't personally care about many issues enough to waste my time shouting out about my causes when I could simply work to change the system from the inside...or wait for the inevitable bloody revolution. What I can do with my money, however, is choose not to support the Komen organization, which won't be much of a change other than not purchasing products that donate money to them.
Ultimately, it is important for everyone to decide for themselves whether or not to continue their support. Breast cancer, while the most ridiculously overfunded cancer in the world by two-fold, has touched the lives of many friends of mine, and remains an important issue for women's health. To cut off funding that provides those preventative resources for women who might not otherwise have that opportunity is unconscionable, regardless of whether or not abortion services are provided by the same clinics that provide those resources.
To make a donation to Planned Parenthood, please visit the following link:
Planned Parenthood Donation Page
Susan G. Komen is, perhaps, the best-known breast cancer foundation in the United States (if not the world), providing millions of men and women with loads of pink ribbons, clothing, bracelets, bumper stickers, cleats, and various other accoutrements that do nothing to either screen for or cure cancer.
Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has recently become known as the nation's largest provider of abortions...despite the fact that abortion services amount to roughly 3% of the services they provide to women. As per usual, no conservative has ever let little things like "facts" get in the way of their carefully crafted narrative.
The founder of Komen, Nancy Brinker, told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that "...the responses we're getting are very, very favorable."
Except, that is, from people within the Komen organization, itself. Since the decision, made in late December of 2011, became public, three top officials have resigned from the organization, though none have directly attributed their conveniently timed resignations to this issue.
Whether reactions from the
This leaves many people caught in the awkward position of whether or not to continue supporting Komen's "noble" cause of raising money for the disproportionately overfunded breast cancer lobby. In this case, I think it only proper that those who disagree with this decision take a page out of the
The AFA is perhaps best known for staging hapless, misguided, and ineffective boycotts against companies who support LGBT equality. These boycotts have proved largely worthless over time, but then, they were only receiving support from their
I am not a protestor by nature. I really don't personally care about many issues enough to waste my time shouting out about my causes when I could simply work to change the system from the inside...or wait for the inevitable bloody revolution. What I can do with my money, however, is choose not to support the Komen organization, which won't be much of a change other than not purchasing products that donate money to them.
Ultimately, it is important for everyone to decide for themselves whether or not to continue their support. Breast cancer, while the most ridiculously overfunded cancer in the world by two-fold, has touched the lives of many friends of mine, and remains an important issue for women's health. To cut off funding that provides those preventative resources for women who might not otherwise have that opportunity is unconscionable, regardless of whether or not abortion services are provided by the same clinics that provide those resources.
To make a donation to Planned Parenthood, please visit the following link:
Planned Parenthood Donation Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)