Right to life and paying for pregnancy

At work today one of my coworkers, who is pregnant, was discussing her pregnancy and planning for the birth of her baby. Several other women who had already gone through it were talking about it with her and they specifically were talking about the finances involved and how much was covered by their health insurance.

I usually try to stay out of conversations involving heterosexual topics, specifically because they don't involve me and because I find them distasteful since conversations about homosexual topics are usually considered too controversial for office topics, which makes me angry. However, I have noticed while reading through insurance packages and different providers that pregnancy is often prohibited from coverage by insurance companies. The preggo woman made the comment that having a baby was expensive and I think that simple statement is so ironic in our current state of pro-life politics.

This may become an addendum to the respect for life post, and I apologize before I go any further. However, as much as I hate the statement that giving birth and bringing a new life into the world, is a miracle, it is certainly a signifiant occurance and an important one for the continuation of society. If we have so much respect for life and think that giving birth is so sacred and miraculous, why isn't it covered by more insurance. Why should someone have to take on a large financial burden in order for them to precipitate such an important occurrence? Shouldn't it be free if having a baby is so special?

The $1 Billion Fire

The current California wildfires are taking up all of the news channels, especially the 24 hour feeder channels like CNN and Fox News, both of which are tired to me. The AP has reported that more than $1 billion worth of damage has already occurred because of the blazing fire. The governor has declared it a federal disaster area, and more than a half million people have had to flee their homes, including many many famous people because it includes Malibu.

I'm not sure if the building codes in the southern parts of the state include the kinds of precautions that they do in LA to prevent earthquake damage or in Florida to survive hurricane damage, but the areas of southern Cali that are getting hit are areas that have desert conditions, that's why the forest fires occur, and have been occurring every year for the past millennium. The idea that these are all of a sudden a greater issue seems as absurd to me as saying that people weren't expecting to get hit with tornadoes when they live in Nebraska or Kansas, or to say that they weren't expecting to be flooded when they live on a floodplain.

If people insist on not just building, but re-building in areas that have consistently suffered natural disasters, we should question whether those people should be allowed to be insured when they know from geological history that property in those areas are going to suffer damage from the frequent and consistent natural disasters over time. These are just as much a drain on the health of a private insurance industry as frequent medical malpractice suits.

The learning curve seems to not have reached those people who don't realize the effects of their increased drain on the natural resources of the area have caused. Part of the increasing dryness leading to the severity of these fires may include global warming in general, but it would seem that the more ground water that is used by human beings in the area and taken out of the natural precipitation cycles, the dryer the ground, plants, air and loss of rain. That means all those rich people with huge houses, which have to be heated, and the spa's that use so much water in cleaning, in products and services for their clients, all the hotels and homes with pools, all of those are putting further stress on an environment which was naturally arid to begin with.

We as a culture still seem to operate under the archaic and ridiculous notion that we can somehow control or master nature, which time and again we are proven to be wrong, whether it's because of the undersea earthquake that causes a tsunami that devastates a quarter of the globe, or try to run huge SUV's with luxury everything, on board DVD players and enough room for a football team on fossil fuels which are of course a limited resource. Instead we should be building in areas that have a good supply of available resources to support the people living in the area, find alternative fuels or alternative means of gaining the resources we need in order to curb the already horrifying environmental damage we've done. Why should someone be paid years of money from taxes or private companies that then raise rates, when they refuse to leave the coastal area that has had hurricanes several times a year since anyone could remember?

When we are smart enough to build houses made to survive the local environmental phenomena, and build in areas that can support us with resources, maybe we'll be able to get in control of the constant drain on property insurance, and return to important issues like international geo-political economic policies, whether we can support increased trade with China when they still zealously oppose any sign of Tibetan independence, or refuse to take any significant political action against their abuses of human rights.

What is a Right to Life?

The 'right to life' is a political phrase used very often by the pro-life political movement to associate their beliefs in the sacredness of every human life with the innate rights afforded to us in the Constitution. It is used in association with situations that are emotional and play to the sympathies of audiences, but they severely limit the application of this idea to the purview of moralistic religious conservatism.

What does that phrase mean, however?

In its current political incarnation it means that life starts at conception and no person or persons should knowingly interfere with its growth and natural progression. This comes into play again later on when the health of a person deteriorates to the point where their family must consider euthanasia.

The broad reach of this, however, isn't the sole property of moralists and conservatives. If we truly are guaranteed a right to life and thus encouraged to have a respect for life, doesn't that also imply a certain quality of living? We also are guaranteed the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' which assumes we all possess the means to pursue those things rather than being physically or mentally handicapped. By respecting someone else's right to life it would therefore appear necessary to allow them what they need to continue in their pursuit of those things.

This is where it gets difficult, however, because the help required for many in order to be able to have a quality of life that would resemble the pursuit of those ideals requires more than a smile and a handshake. For some it involves intensive medication and therapy, or physical therapy and regular doctor's office visits. If a person is unable to pursue those ideals without assistance, it is unlikely they have private health insurance and those services are too expensive for most people to pay out of pocket, so they would then need public support.

My experience, however cynical, is that words are easy comforts anyone can afford, however the political application of paying higher taxes to provide better public support is a very different thing. While right to life is an ideology that has become so pervasive in current politics, there is no discussion of these other applications of that idea. In fact if there truly was a respect for life among those that espouse this political ideology, why isn't there more focus on improving the adoption process and putting effort into improving the foster care system?

The right to life and respect for life goes far beyond abortion and euthanasia or assisted suicide. It applies to the support we as a society give to those who are mentally or physically disabled to the point which they are not able to live a life of the quality that many take for granted, either due to the strain of financing necessary medications, the limitations of their living situations, or their access to quality healthcare and therapies. If we truly believe in these ideals than we would spend less time protesting ineffectually and more time, money and effort in creating positive and supportive environments for children through adoption and foster care, and make sure that those who are otherwise live in fear, depression, and without hope are able to live as fully and happily a life as their friends and neighbors.

Gun Control

The issue of gun control is one of the less controversial of the divisive issues in politics at the present. Gun control has been a political issue since the creation of guns, as were the sale and ownership of weapons in general since the dawn of time. It is a simple concept, weapons equal power, at least military power and that is the force by which most cultures have governed their people since the inception of governing. That is why the constitutional amendment guarantees the right to bare arms, it's the government control and the attempt to subvert the building revolution that had instigated the outlow of private gun ownership by the British in the first place. Too many people use the simple fact of a constitutional ammendment to assert their own right as a legitimate American right, but it was never the intention of the founders to provide weapons to criminals. At that time handguns were pistols with a single shot and took time to reload just like the rifles. They didn't have the six shooter and certainly not automatics. So why are people so insistent that they have the right to own guns? Possibly it is for the same reason that the amendment was included, it represented the power fo the government over private citizens.

An alternative to the disempowerment of individuals by the government might be the desire for personal safety. The home owner wants to defend their home against intruders, a person wants to feel safe walking down the street in their neighborhood. Neither of those situations are helped by the rights of others to own guns. It actually makes us less safe when a person intent on committing a crime has access to handguns, and aside from denying felons the right to own guns, it is impossible to discriminate against one group versus another on a constitutional right.

Notice that this isn't an argument against hunting or against hunting rifles. Hunting rifles and handguns are very different things, just as automatic weapons are from hunting rifles. If hunting is a sport, than it is poor sportsmanship to use an automatic weapon just because the hunter can't shoot straight or because he wants to hit more targets. Also, it is cruelty to the animals hunted to be subjected to increased injuries from stray rounds, especially if they aren't downed and it inhibits their ability to participate in their flock or herd. Men shouldn't be allowed to own military style weaponry just to satisfy their feelings of penile inadequacy.

One final issue that seems relevant to gun control is the right to life. This phrase gets thrown around too often, especially by anti-abortionists, but it is a concept that is too important to lve as the narrow-minded and flawed political vehicle they have made it into. Right to Life is a very broad reaching idea of respecting the lives of others as sacred. 'Thou shalt not kill' is the commandment and although there can be many interpretations of exactly what that applies to, there is one obvious meaning, killing is a crime above all other crimes. But how is that served by ownership of an item that by definition is made to kill? When statistics show handguns in particular as the cause of most violent deaths in this country, how is that honoring that commandment? If statistics show that the ownership of handguns made no significant reduction in the occurrence of violent crimes during home invasions, how does that justify owning one? Does it counteract the number of accidental shootings by children living in a home with a handgun? Or justify the statistics on school shootings where teenagers had access to guns in the home and used them to commit violence in their schools? If we truly had a respect for life, shouldn't we do everything we could, everything that seemed necessary, to guarantee to our best ability the safety and health of all of our citizens?

The framers of the constitution may or may not have had criminal activity in their minds when they debated that amendment, but as most of the troupes in the militias and armies during the Revolutionary Period were required to provide all their own equipment, it would be naivety to think that the right to bear arms had its spirit purely in the desire to guarantee hunters continued to have rifles available, much less foresee and not have acted on the rising number of violent crimes committed between young people in their own schools.

Cycle of Violence: Gun Control and Victim's Rights

The subject is a twelve year old girl who was shot in the head and put into the hospital in early September. She is still unresponsive but has been taken off the respirator and is breathing on her own as her family maintains full faith that she'll come home as the girl that they knew. The girl is poor and black living in a major city.

So this is the crossroads of two important political issues - gun control and victim's rights. The victim's family is holding a party as a fundraiser for the girl to cover medical expenses that have continued to accumulate in the time that she's been hospitalized, and which will continue to accumulate. As a victim, one who has no financial independence of her own and who obviously has a very long recovery ahead of her if she does come out of her coma, how is she ever going to be able to pay down medical expenses not covered by the state? If her family is working class or poorer, how would they be able to cover it? When long term care is required that would carry a person over the caps of whatever health insurance they may already possess, what responsibility do we have as a society to care for that person?

As a society we are struggling with the issue of gun control, and that seems to be a particularly relevant issue in this case. How many fewer cases of these violent crimes would occur if handguns were controlled with the strictness with which we control explosive substances? aren't they as deadly? Yet we are allowed to hold licenses for private ownership of handguns that we would never be allowed for some controlled substances. Even propane requires certain permits to possess in large quantities, like the licenses and permits farmers have to use propane in large scale heating systems for barns. Why is it inconceivable then that we as private citizens wouldn't have to have a permit demonstrating a necessity for using a handgun before we are allowed to own one?

If we accept the ownership of weapons as a constitutional right and do not put very clear and discriminating limits on ownership of weapons when they are responsible for the majority of violent deaths in this country, we as a society have to take responsibility for the victims of crimes perpetrated largely by use of those weapons. That means that we owe victims of gun violence every type of care necessary for them to recover. If we don't owe them that because of our common humanity than we owe them because we have given permission to those individuals committing the crime by our purposeful and self-interested ignorance of the fact that guns only have one purpose, they kill.

Rich Libral Monster...

St. Paul Minnesota is going to be the home of the 2008 Republican National Convention, in the Excell Center looking over the Historic Riverfront. The problem, though, is where are the republicans going to stay? Where are they going to eat? Where are they going to spend their money? Minnesota, and especially the Twin Cities are strongly liberal. The large younger population in Minneapolis means that that city tends to be more progressive. The St. Paul population is different. There are a lot of families, young and old, and many long-time residents. It is also a city that has made a mission out of preserving its more historic areas.

Over the past decades, however, this has meant that the projects, funding, and interest of the city was distributed among its different neighborhoods, and since there are several colleges with long histories in St. Paul, it is not hard to see why. However, this has meant that the downtown area which boasted numerous shops and dining during the sixties and seventies has shriveled up to a single Macy's which is chugging along until it's lease is up and then there'll be one more empty building downtown. In fact, there is one building already that is completely empty, it's owner having left it to stand, the street level boarded up, for almost a decade. The building isn't small either, but a dozen stories. This is the city that the republicans are coming to.

When the convention was first announced, the mayor defended the situation by saying it should attract $150 million in revenue, despite what money would be required to prepare for it. That was a few years ago. Now, however, looking at less than a year away, it is scary to think what will happen when they come. Where are those millions going to come from?

This diatribe has a point, though. The catalyst for this situation is what I will call a rabid form of self-satisfying, self-righteous, and self-glorifying liberalism on the part of upper middle class and upper class long-time citizens of this area. They'll create projects of affordable housing in neighborhoods with little crime and good schools, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. As long as they can rely on those working class and poor people not to cross the street that marks the edge of the secluded wealthy houses than it is an act of a good old liberal. They want to preserve the historic nature of Victoria Crossing, an area with small shops and a collection of bars and restaurants which guarantees two things: night life and consistent business, though the area has benefited from their inclusion of a Bonfire Grill, a J-Crew, and a Pottery Barn.

All of this is completely overshadows the importance of a downtown filled with offices where the only places that survive do so because of their lunch crowd. The most successful shop, it seems, is the tiny candy and popcorn store which is busy at all hours and open three or four hours after everything else except bars shut down. There is little nightlife, and what of it there is scratches and claws a living out in spite of no help from the city.

Still, the good old liberals go on in their self-satisfying way, helping those poor, the blacks, the Hmong, and the Latinos, as long as it isn't bringing them into to their neighborhood, or into the schools where their children attend.

Six-figure contract for some, food stamps for others...

I find it interesting that the government is trying to retain large numbers of experienced service people with large cash bonuses. Hit here to read the AP article on yahoo that talks about this issue. If the businesses feel that it hasn't been a significant drain, isn't this really making an effort to extend the tours of already career military men? I say men since I don't believe that the green berets and navy seals receiving the payments allow women.

I do know that there are servicemen and women who are barely making the equivalent of minimum wage and many families are on food stamps. All the 'benefits' referred too in that article are available on the base only, and the quality of housing is vastly different for non-officers than it is for officers and their families. If the Pentagon is having trouble paying the younger troupes, most of whom are young men and women with young families and children, than how is it able to afford paying six figure bonuses to anyone? If these career soldiers are so experienced, how about they lead the tactical training and drills to better prepare the younger and less-experienced soldiers, then the military could cut down on the number of high bonuses they hand out and maybe the families with children could afford to send their kids to competitive local schools, afford better child health care, pay for spouses to go to school or receive job training and a host of other things. Maybe they could even take better care of the surviving families of those who have already lost their lives. Wouldn't that be worth the money?

Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia: the fine art of oppression

A professor at Columbia found a noose on the door of a colleague and friend, a woman who teaches about racism in the graduate school of education. One student reacted in the article by saying that she's not surprised because racism is still very active in the world. I have mixed feelings about that, especially given the anti-gay political support coming from black churches and religious leaders, but I suppose in some people's minds the oppression of gays isn't nearly as bad as the oppression of black people, but they probably never saw the pictures of the bloody fence where Andrew Shepherd hung and bled all night in the freezing cold, badly beaten and asking for his mother.

She's right in one way, though, racism is alive and well, so is sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression. While self-identified Christians complain about being oppressed by our modern secular society, they should think about a few issues first:

1 - They have yet to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, it hasn't even passed one house of Congress, and that is a bill that was worked over and over again so that it simply prevented the discrimination of groups recognized as oppressed minorities. That list, funny enough, didn't include gay people. It managed to become an Act of Congress, but doesn't carry enough support to be added to our most defining document.

2 - It isn't at all shocking that nooses were placed on the tree outside Jena High School, a horribly painful symbolism for black students, but one acceptable enough for the students responsible to only receive a suspension. It also wasn't shocking that the resultant escalation of tension and violence occurred that ended up playing out in the case of the 'Jena Six'.

3 - When public figures like Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh are able to use their platforms to spew long diatribes of hurtful, painful, and hateful words to a mass appeal with few repercussions. The Imus case is only one example among the many shock-jocks and political pundits who are arrogant enough to think they should get on the radio and convince the masses that their ignorant and self-righteous beliefs are gospel truth. Rush Limbaugh still has a huge fan base that is willing to overlook his drug abuse and perjury because they are entertained by his vicious comments which include denigrating mothers of active duty military members who want their children to come home.


I think the more devastating problem is the more subtle forms of discrimination that can be as unnoticeable as the spell check on my firefox program. If you type in the words, Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, and don't capitalize it, they activate the spell check signal. If you type pagan, a recognized form of religious worship, it doesn't.

I've experienced the subtler forms of discrimination at work, not getting rehired after a brief time off from work. While I had some issues with lateness and some with appropriate office conversation, the vast majority of issues that I had as an employee could be directly or indirectly linked to one or both of two things: being a gay man, and being bipolar. The being gay part didn't happen in overt homophobia, but instead by people who were uncomfortable with some of my conversations. I refrained, at least most of the time, from anything graphically sexual, yet there were still complaints to the managers. Once, during a review, my manager actually said, "and you need to cool it with the 'gay stuff'" Well, sorry, that's my world. It might not be everything of my world, but it is at least a big part. I don't want to have to sit through a long conversation in the break room about engagements, wedding planning, honeymoons, babies, nieces and nephews or anything of the trappings of an obviously heterocentric society, yet I can't speak about topics that relate directly to my life without making people feel uncomfortable. If that is an issue with the 'team' I worked with and I make noticeable improvements on being more careful with what I say and around whom, then that shouldn't be a further issue. If I have to adapt myself so significantly to my work environment until I feel uncomfortable, or if I feel like, which I did, the managers were allowing others to speak in a way that I was uncomfortable with but which were about heterosexual sex topics, that is harassment.

In the end it doesn't really matter if your employer has an nondiscrimination policy, unless there is an obvious and overt form of harassment or assault, there isn't safety for people of a minority at world or in the world, not really.

A Problem With Circumcision

I was at work today and a woman was having a conversation with one of her coworkers about, what I inferred was, circumcising her baby. I have a serious issue with that topic being discussed in the workplace as I am one who is often had supervisors discussing appropriate and inappropriate work conversations. I also have serious and fundamental problems with the idea of circumcision.

A) That's how nature made us, the foreskin has protective/hygienic functions as well as sexual functions. The practice of circumcision is ancient and has cultural and religious roots, yet these were originally dependent on the beliefs and customs of those ancient cultures. The Christian and Hebrew faith tells that Abraham was given direction from God that he should circumcise his son and himself as a sign of his faith, and that it would distinguish the Jews from the gentiles. It was also much more hygienic in ancient times since they didn't have readily accessible hot water to be able to clean underneath the foreskin on a regular basis. So why do we continue the practice now, 3,000 years later?

B) There is no choice for the infant or toddler whether they should be circumcised or not. It is a decision the parents make regardless of whatever the child may eventually want in the matter, and it is a surgical alteration to the child's natural body that is common practice in the United States. It is a problem when male circumcision is considered 'normal' or becomes common practice in a culture that considers female circumcision to be a violation of human rights. It is also a problem because it is an either-or situation, once the foreskin is removed it cannot be truly restored and there are enough instances of improper methods and failed circumcision and the effects on the emotional/psychological health of the child later on that there should be more awareness of its violation of the child's rights.

What bothers me most about the practice is that the children aren't given a choice and the fact that as they grow, there is no basis for comparison to call into question whether or not it was right for the alteration to have occurred. I was never given a choice and now in my adult years, I wish my parents hadn't decided to go ahead with it. I am also not sure how much thought goes into the decision among most parents. If hygiene is the consideration, we are in an age of easy cleaning. Parents use soft disposable tissue already soaked in antibacterial soap to clean the child between baths, and it is a simple matter of pulling back the foreskin to clean the penis until the child is old enough to clean it himself. If it is a matter of ethnicity or religious beliefs, there are plenty of Catholics from Spanish-speaking countries who are not circumcised. Also, and while I have no statistics on it, the fact that circumcision has become such a widely encouraged means of preventing the spread of HIV in African states suggests that there are probably many uncircumcised men there, and at least a few of them are from predominantly Islamic countries. How does it prevent the infection? The mucosal layer of the foreskin is there to delay penetration into the skin by foreign bacteria and parasites, if cleaned properly, there should be no substantial increase in the infection rates as the infection would still have the primary means of entry, through the urethra, or the possible secondary, through cutes or sores on the shaft of the penis.

There is no reason for the barbaric practice of circumcision to continue in an age of Clorox wipes and antibacterial soap. While the beliefs of it may have changed over time, the horrible instruments used in the act have changed little. It violates the rights of the young child, hasn't shown any significant reduction in disease that can't be attributed to the reduction of sexual activity caused by lack of sensation brought on by the additional abrasion on the head of the penis once the foreskin is removed, and it one of the first steps parents can take to force an identity on their child, by taking away his ability to control his own body.

Links for more information on circumcision:

http://www.circumcision.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Setting the Tone for Everything

So, here's the deal, I'm 28 on Friday and I'll have only had one boyfriend, who never actually said anything about us being together, and we were only together for a month. I know that's shitty in comparison to so many heterosexual couples my age, and in fact compared to all of my friends, but that's what happens when you are crazy and between the periods of deep and scary depression there are bouts of feverish mania with intermittent manic outburst of uncontrollable and terrifying rage. I'm on plenty of meds now, though, so that is supposed to make everything better. How could someone in those circumstances ever expect to find someone that wasn't as chronically ill as they? That's on top of any body issues I have. I'm a thin blondish haired twink trapped in the body of a 250+ pound hairy gay man and have been ever since I can remember. I've always had a tough time with my body, for reasons that are due to abuse and not so much a gradually developed poor self esteem. It makes it crippling to go out and interact with anyone in social settings like bars or even at parties. I went through periods of desperate loneliness, especially as my depressive symptoms grew stronger and stronger, but now I am in a place of quiet desperation as I feel like I've wasted more and more time. You see, I'm never going to be that happy, pretty, young person, ever. I wasn't when I was younger, and I'll never be that as I grow older. That's a tough thing for me to face, especially when I compare it to the brief times I've had some companionship, aside from my parents, in my life and how satisfying I found that to be.

I try not to be bitter about these things, I have accomplished things and I have had friends and seen and done what other people find pretty amazing. Still, it's hard for me to look back and be satisfied with my past since there was such long periods of unhappiness. Now, at 28, I find myself truly enjoying very few things. I find happiness to be fleeting and struggle and heartache and pain to be constant. It's something that some people find melodramatic and I've heard many many people say that everyone has problems, everyone struggles, life is hard...But that's not true. Life doesn't have to be a struggle, and usually its the results of peoples' actions that make them have to struggle, but that's not what I'm talking about...What I'm talking about is the way that truly poor people have no ability to move out of poor neighborhoods, their school systems are broken so there isn't really a viable education available, most young people only see the violence and poverty immediately surrounding them and so they have no ability or even plan to escape that world. That's struggle. People with AIDS who have to manage the world of public assistance, finding a place to life, work, mental health, discrimination wherever they go if people know their status, or how the fear of other people will cause coworkers, etc,... to react if they know, and all of this on top of taking 30 pills a day which often make them too sick to eat.

Those people know struggle. I know struggle. When you can't make yourself get out of bed, when you can't even appreciate the colors of the trees and flowers, laughing children, or good weather, when debating and planning suicide are a constant activity in your down moments or when a TV show or movie can rock you so badly that you are physically ill for days, that is struggle. When you can't go to work because the dreams you have been having have progressively made you more erratic and make you so physically sick you are practically paralyzed for hours, that is struggle, and none of those are exaggerations at all.

Most people don't have to struggle like that. Yes, everyone has problems and life is hard, but not everyone has to struggle like that, not everyone has problems like that. That's why I hate people, possibly with good intentions, who have no ability to really grasp the kinds of things that fuck with me on a minute to minute basis judge me or tell me, you have control over what you say and do...Shut up, you don't know, you have no idea what it's like to be so full of rage that you watch yourself like you are in a movie as you run around the house screaming and with the irresistible urge to break things, or to hurl things at people around you trying to calm you down.

How can I expect anyone to want to deal with that for thirty years, much less weeks or months.