Yay, A New President
Maybe, I won't be considering giving up my baseball caps for hockey jerseys as much anymore. It appears the young'ens of the U.S.A. came out to vote on Tuesday. Enough that MTV may have finally "rocked the vote" this time. Or maybe it is due to the message oozing over from past election vote rocking (newly turned voter over in last 4-8 years). It did seem that any band that was cool was rocking a Barack festival somewhere. I like art with politics mixed in with it anyway. I wonder if Barack t-shirts will ever be as fashionable as Che t-shirts.A signal of a creative class is coming into power, I'm all for more art and less oil. The problem being that we live in an infrastructure that for the past 70+ years has been dominantly designed around the consumption of oil. While creative's get around these design flaws, most will need a little help in adjusting that basic American right to drive an SUV anywhere, anytime. I definitely support more and more options for our mobility.The internet and technology has definitely changed what we are, but is anyone more or less significant to the world with all the thingamabobs connected? Does it make us feel more involved? The RSSkids will be happy to know that they can check Change.gov to stay current with all things presidential on their cell phone.Labels: Politics, Rant, Urbanism
Oboyama
Not that I haven't ever been called a socialist for my views, but I think the real victory for us is that the new president actually knows how to send an email, even though he will not be allowed to.
Labels: Microblog, Politics, Rant
Blurry Lines
It doesn't take much for us to feel alienated through a different language being used, especially in groups. Language is one of the many tools we like to use to categorize and stereotype people we meet. Language is always a reflection of a person's background, so language differences can sometimes mean a great many other differences in beliefs.I work as a designer for a sign company, where we have many customers that are immigrants from a number of different parts of the world. I have to constantly deal with language effecting the way I handle my job. It can be frustrating trying to produce a logo or graphic for someone that can only express themselves with a limited vocabulary of what I can understand. Once a guy brought in his 10 year old son, who had been learning English in public school for only a few months, to translate what he needed to say to me. It can also be fun to teach a little bit of English, and also learn something about another language. It is hard sometimes when a co-worker expresses his belief that everyone should speak English, because I don't agree.I think it is interesting that Canada has a portion of people that speak French, and that it once almost divided the country into two. I wonder why the French language did not remain as popular in the French settlements along the Mississippi river in the United States? The northern/mid-western accent must have some amount of French influence, though I can't hear it at all.I do enjoy listening to accents from all over the world, especially the different variations of U.S. English. I also think it can be fun to visit a place where you are the one with the weird accent. It makes it more obvious that people do treat you differently based on the way you talk. It is not only in the pronunciation that I notice geographic differences, but also in the words and wordings that are used. What "sounds right" to one person doesn't always to another, so I think that correctness is (and should be) relative to the people that use it.I don't really like the idea that there are organizations prescribing the way that a language should be used by a certain group, especially if the group doing the prescribing doesn't really relate to the group that it is being prescribed to. These types of organizations serve us better when the focus is more on defining the different ways that language is naturally used, rather than how it should or shouldn't be used. But, maybe without all the assigned rules handed out through history, we would have mutilated English (and maybe even French) into even more divisions than it currently has, and someone from California would not be able to understand someone from New York?I don't think that language is something that can be controlled very drastically by the rules that a government or official language association tells us to follow. It seems more likely that a common usage would easily override any rule.Labels: Essay, Language, Politics, School
Don't Call Me White
The name of any group of people tells us something about them. It matters because any one individual interpretation of the name cause assumptions and expectations of how meetings with other groups should work and how each fits into the social community. A tipping in the scales of power. It works along with any socioeconomic group; rich vs. poor, male vs. female, old vs. young, etc.I think that in earlier times of human history skin color could more accurately define to others the differences among two groups of people. But, not in today's world, where there is great deal of ethnically mixed individuals, especially in the United States. Someone's general geographic look doesn't have to mean anything at all about their social status and/or background, and that is not becoming any less prevalent.So, as classification by an outward appearance slowly becomes less reliable for us to make the assumptions that we srtive to make, the next point of judgment is in the language used by any individual or a group. I often find myself trying to guess where a person is from by listening to accents. I think we gauge people on many levels when we interact with language. Things like; how much money someone might make, their profession, religious leanings and many other simple assumptions.Language is definitely intertwined with ethnicity. Being from a mix of European ancestry, I have learned to associate myself with the term "white". Somewhere along the way, I started feeling that the label carried a weight that I didn't feel that I should have to carry. For whatever reason when the question is asked, I like to check the "other" box and write in "European American". Though some can argue that the two have the same meaning, I don' think they do.I also think that there is the possibility that the "white" ethnicity dominance in the United States is slightly exaggerated by way of the term "white" being one of the most broad options available (except for maybe "American Indian"). This map didn't exactly match up to my own personal definitions of the races. I think if I were to create my own version of this map I would want to add 10 more naming of races to the list. Is that a good or a bad thing?
 from NOFX - Punk In Drublic (1994) Don't Call me WhiteLabels: Essay, Language, Maps, MP3, Politics, School
Freedumb
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Ben Franklin Earlier this week as I was driving down the road, I noticed some red and blue lights flashing at me from behind. "OK" I thought "I am not going that fast, am I really getting pulled over for going 5 over the speed limit?" Well, the final ticket issued only gave a non-fineable warning for speeding. My real crime was that I was not wearing a seatbelt.Now, it is not my intent to disagree that there are positive effects when you wear a seatbelt. My issue is in that my local government has decided that it is their business to require me by law to do so. I don't see it as being justified. I believe it is a personal choice to buckle up or not. Should someone get in an accident then they should personally accept to live with the consequences from which ever decision is made. Those consequences are not something that has an effect on society as a whole either way. So then, what right does government have taking the right to make personal decisions? Instead, anyone choosing not to wear seatbelts is fined $45 because the government doesn't think we have the right to make that choice ourselves.
Labels: Politics, Rant
Noookleeeeaaar
"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld
Pardon me if I seem untrusting of our world leaders, the varying stances on nuclear weapons/energy are frightening. The United States and Britain get to cooperatively conduct "essential nuclear experiments", meanwhile King George W. and his exclusive nuclear club will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has yet (key word) to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.India, a country that has developed and tested nuclear weapons, but have never been a part of the NPT, gets a big praise for using their nuclear technology partly for energy production. George will even give them access to U.S. nuclear technology. Though they are not asked to allow inspectors into their nuclear military facilities. Why? Because an India using nuclear energy might make gasoline cheaper for American S.U.V.'s.North Korea continues to be a threat because they might have a nuclear weapon or two, and they won't let George and his inspectors in to have a look around.Will someone please tell George to finish up the wars he has already started before he goes on to install a new government for the people of Iran.Labels: Politics
The Local Decision
When you take something from the store shelf and put it into your shopping cart, do you ever wonder where it came from? Most likely whatever it is, it has traveled hundreds if not thousands of miles to get there. It has passed through a number of hands, from the person responsible for producing it to the person that collects your money for it in the checkout line. In part, you are paying for all of those paychecks.You can make your community stronger by evaluating the companies that produce and sell the products you consume. If more effort were made by everyone to buy from local companies whenever possible our standard of living would be higher. There would be more jobs available to the neighboring population. The jobs created would be higher paying than jobs created by national chain stores. Everyone would be healthier because locally grown food is more nourishing. The air would be cleaner without trucks transporting food hundreds of miles. And finally, the landfills would be less full from the reduction in the needed packaging for food being transported long distances. It does require some time and effort, but would be favorable for all. Buying your goods and services locally is not always easy, sometimes even impossible.Your Neighborhood Economy
When you buy a local product or service that money circulates directly into your community. The people and businesses that surround you will benefit. Local businesses tend to purchase more from other local businesses. So the decision to buy local will help many other local businesses grow.Small local businesses are at the heart of a healthy neighborhood economy. They provide Americans with more high paying jobs. They are more likely to hire people with a better understanding of their business, resulting in better service for you. Most importantly, the owners of the business are people who live in the area. Chances are that they share many common interests with the community.Probably the easiest and best way to put money back into the local economy is to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables. There is hardly a difference in the price when comparing local produce with produce that has been trucked in. When eating out you can dine at locally owned restaurants that serve local products. The challenge lies in reading the labels, asking questions, and remaining dedicated to the decision.A Greater Experience
Local businesses help to give a city its distinctive character. A big attraction for tourists is unique places to shop. Often these shops can tell a story of local culture and tradition. People love to shop at stores not available anywhere else in the world.Local businesses can provide for people what they really want to buy much better than national chain stores can. A number of small businesses selling products that are based on the local needs will generate a much wider selection than one company that orders ten million widgets, then try to convince their customers that they need one.Chain stores provide lower paying jobs and less health insurance to their employees than locally owned and operated businesses do. Chain stores also impel suburban sprawl because they are usually located on the outskirts of town. A local business generally will do better located in a city center. In addition, a local business will give back to the community significantly more.A Service To Health
Buying local foods eliminates the costs of having it brought in to you from a location that requires shipping it on a gas consuming, air polluting truck. Also requiring more packaging for the transport. This creates more garbage to be thrown out into a landfill. In addition to better treatment of the environment, eating locally grown foods provides more for your body as well. These fruits and vegetables are at least a few days fresher. That means a higher nutritional content and much more flavor.Doing Your Part
Seek local businesses that represent you and your beliefs and give them with your patronage. Tell your friends about the businesses that you support and why. Small businesses survive on word of mouth advertising, as well as repeat customers.Eating seasonally means knowing what foods are grown in the area and planning meals around what is in season. Farmers markets have recently become extremely popular. They are an excellent way to get educated about which fruits and vegetables are grown locally. Also, other neighborhood businesses such as bakeries, restaurants and artists are usually in attendance seeking new customers. Buying your produce at a farmers market puts a significantly greater amount of money into the farmer’s pocket by eliminating all of the middlemen it takes to get the same product onto a store shelf. You will pay about the same price for a fresher product.Buying local whenever possible certainly shapes the opportunities available to you and your neighbors directly. Opting to provide an elevated quality of life for everyone in the community. A little awareness will go a long way.Labels: Consumerist, Essay, Politics, School, Urbanism
Ashdown vs. Hatch
Pete Ashdown is running for U.S. Senate in 2007. He is the founder of Xmission, which was the first ISP company in Utah. A tough battle is ahead because it is hard for a democrat to win in Utah, which is why Hatch has been in office for the last 30 years. Hatch was elected to the senate in 1976 and has been nesting in office for too long, since before I was born. I think that the senate would serve America better if there was a limit placed on the number of terms a senator can serve. Just opposing Hatch would get my vote, but Pete has exceeded that qualification. I really like the collaborative wiki that has been set up for his campaign. The biggest factors that have gained my personal support are as follows.1. He makes an effort to support local businesses.A few months ago Pete contacted my place of work, he was looking for a local place to print his campaign stickers. We probably will not get the job because I suspect that the quality of stickers that we print exceed his needs.2. He is in support of regulating drug advertising. I am sick of hearing all those "ask your doctor" commercials. I see a corrupt pharmaceutical industry that doesn't really want to cure any sickness or disease, because if they did they would lose profits!3. He is a supporter of election reform.Currently we rely on an antique system that puts the power of electing the president into the "swing states" causing the election campaign to be focused on those states. I would like to see a system based more on the popular vote, and not the all/nothing electoral votes from each state. Living in Utah, even IF the popular vote went to a democratic candidate Utah's 5 electoral votes most certainly would not.In the 2004 presidential election I attempted to trade my vote with someone through an effort made by votepair. I would have happily traded my vote to Kerry for a smaller party candidate and voted for Nader or Cobb. A vote for Kerry in a swing state would have had more of an effect on the outcome of the election than the vote did in my red state. The smaller party votes almost always take votes away from the democrats, and not the republicans. Though votepair was unable to match me up with someone in a swing state, they did match up thousands of others. The fact that this theoretically could influence the outcome of the presidential election is a sign that something needs fixing. I think a nation nearing 300 million people that is trying to create equality for everyone should have more than two federally funded political parties. Our personal interests would be better catered to if that money was divided among three or four political parties.4. Ashdown wants to control lobbying, and restrict in-person meetings between officials and lobbyists. Lobbyists are the biggest corruption factor in our government. More or less they are paid by organizations and/or corporations to bribe lawmakers into making/not making laws that serve the interest of who they work for, and not the American people.Other appealing items to me that are the opposite views of Orrin Hatch. 5. Prison reform by preparing prisoners to return to society.
6. Support high speed rail over road widening.
7. Believes public schools should be free of commercialism.
8. Government interference with personal lives should be reduced when it comes to sexual orientation.
9. Copyright issues.Again, you can read more about all of this at his collaborative wiki Labels: Essay, Politics
Everyone's Right To Health Care
The health care system in America is approached as a business, where there is money to be made. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable businesses in the world. A family health insurance plan costs around 25% of an average yearly income. A physician brings home a salary that is the equivalent to a police officer's, a fire fighter's, and public school teacher's income combined. These things, along with numerous other factors cause our nation to have the most costly health care in the world. It is unquestionably far from the best.
This is an effort to draw attention to the reasons why the health care system in the United States doesn't work for the average citizen. Our government does not recognize a proper responsibility to our health care, and we have a right to demand that it work better for us! Providing health care through profit seeking businesses creates an inequality among the people of this nation. Health care in the United States is a luxurious privilege for the wealthy. It is a burden on the poor. We have all seen collection boxes in the checkout lines, asking for donations so that someone might be able to pay for medical care that they need to live. This is an example of social health care for the lower class. Meanwhile the upper class receives unnecessary cosmetic surgeries that are covered under insurance policies. Does it seem appropriate that social class establishes the availability, quality and cost of someone's health care?
Modern Medicine Emerges
In the early 1900's surgery had become common, and medication was frequently being prescribed to patients. Most importantly, the cost of medical care began to climb. Physicians became prestigiously recognized and began collecting higher incomes. The concern of the middle class shifted. Where they had once worried about sickness causing their time on the job and wages to be lost, transformed into an uncertainty in their ability to pay for expensive medical care, if they needed it. In 1912, the issue of a national health insurance plan was a topic of interest during the presidential race between Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. All three candidates supported the idea. (Ginzberg 1) However, issues could not be resolved to turn the idea into a reality. By the 1920's, a structure for the system that was to come was beginning to take form. Private insurance companies initiated deals with large companies to provide health care insurance to their workforces. Employers used health care benefits to lure employees to work for their companies. President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved for a plan of national health insurance to be included in the Social Security Act in 1935, but it was omitted due to overwhelming opposition.In 1947, President Truman proposed a plan for universal national health care, but it was quickly denounced by the American Medical Association and was called a communist plot by congress.
Insurance Companies Boom
The 1950's saw rapid growth of private insurance companies. In the early 60's there were over 700 companies selling health insurance. Insurance-based employment became the standard in delivering America its health care coverage. The pressure on the government to create a system diminished, because a large majority had good health care coverage. For a time, it seemed to be working very well.A problem emerged when the retiring population lost their health insurance with their employment, at an age when their health care was crucial. As a solution to this problem, the tax funded programs Medicare and Medicaid were implemented in 1966. Medicare was designed for the elderly over 65 who were without health coverage, and Medicaid was aimed at helping women and children living in poverty with no work based health insurance at all. These programs were largely viewed as the first step towards a national health insurance program. However, this has been the only major legislative reform to our health care system since the end of World War II. (Ginzberg 87) The costs of medical care continued to skyrocket through the 1970's and 80's while the number of uninsured climbed higher every year. With so many lacking health care coverage, along with the escalating costs of health care, the system was declared to be in crisis.Failed attempts at health care insurance for the nation were made during the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.At the end of the 1990's, 44 million people or 16% of the population had no health insurance at all, even though 75% of those had a full-time job or lived in a household with at least one full-time worker. Another 42 million people had inadequate insurance. This meant insurance had been paid for, but it did not afford all the medical attention they needed. (McCuen 10) The situation since has not improved.
Health Care As It Is Today
Today, we are one of only two democratic free market countries in the world that does not insure all of its citizens. Most of the world understands that health care coverage is a public good, and most importantly a basic human right. People of the United States have accepted it to be quite the opposite, a purchased and consumed commodity. Some argue that the government intervention actually creates the higher costs. If this is the case, then why is it that our health care is so much more expensive than that of other developed nations, and a larger part of our population is completely uninsured? Another opposition states that a universal health care program would destroy incentives for patients to seek out the best prices and the best services/products that are available. This stems from a selfish approach that one should not have to pay for another's health care. When really it would be for a greater good. We all pay taxes to facilitate the cost of roads, some that we never drive on, yet we all benefit from the effects of having them, though sometimes very indirectly. The fact is that a greater number of healthy Americans would be in everybody's interest.
The United States spends significantly more per capita on health care than any other advanced nation, but unlike the other nations, it fails to provide health coverage for its entire population. The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in the world in the efficiency of our health care system. (Frisof) Americans are also less satisfied with their healthcare, and our life expectancy is worse than that of the Western average. (Galdwell) It seems that we get to pay a whole lot more for noticeably less. It is a bit ironic that a nation notorious for outstanding economic efficiency and performance allows this system to remain in place, and plainly pick our pockets.In the United States, 66% of non elderly people are covered by a private health insurance plan. A monthly fee is paid to a for-profit organization, in return for varying limited coverage. When the need arises, people usually are required to pay either a deductible or co-pay for their care. Insurance costs an average of over $10,000 per family per year and is steadily increasing. (Appleby) A meager 16% of people are covered under Medicaid or other public state programs. This leaves the remaining 18% uninsured. There are 45 million uninsured people, and the number has been increasing by more than one million people per year over the last five years. (Frisof)
The BIG Problems
Every year fewer employers are providing insurance coverage for workers. Employers are not required by law to provide even minimal amounts of health insurance. Gone are the days that Americans will work for the same company for 20 plus years and then retire. We only hold jobs for less than four years. (Embree) What interest does a company have in providing good health care coverage for workers who will only be employed for a few years? It does not make sense that we place the bulk of responsibility in providing health care insurance on employers. In fact, only 60% of companies even place that responsibility on themselves. (Appleby) It is apparent that employers cannot and/or will not adequately provide for everyone's health care needs.It is illegal for a hospital to refuse care to a patient because of a lack of insurance, however the patient is responsible for all of the costs that the hospital bills. The chief cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. Of the 45 million people that are uninsured, 22 million of them owe money to hospitals. (Galdwell) Additionally, half of all Americans contacted by collection agencies are in debt because of medical bills. (McCuen 10) These figures make it bluntly obvious that Americans certainly are not able to provide for our health care out of our own pockets.
Harm Disguised As Care
The United States is also alone in that we are the only advanced nation to not place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Pharmaceutical companies ranked third in the most profitable businesses category in 2003. (Angell) They have more lobbyists in Washington than there are members of Congress. They continue to give generously to political campaigns for politicians that provide the industry with laws such as prohibiting Americans from importing drugs from countries where they are less expensive. (Angell) Drug companies have been extensively criticized for price gouging and contributing to the ever-increasing cost of health care. They claim that the high prices are a result of research and development costs. But a look at the expenditures throughout the 1990's reveals that the top 10 drug companies spent 35% of sales on marketing, while putting only 11-14% into research and development. Meanwhile, 25% of sales were profit. (Angell) In 2002 those 10 drug companies together totaled more profit than the other 490 companies on the Fortune 500 list combined (Angell) Our health depends on the ability of companies to make a profit off of it. The pharmaceutical companies would not want to cure you of anything. If you were provided with a cure then they would lose a paying customer. The goal is simply to provide a drug that will suppress your symptoms enough to make you feel better until the drug wears off and you need to take another dose.
What Will Be Done?
Our government provides security through a tax paid police force, and a fire department for each community to call upon when needed. Tax dollars fund education through public schools. Our government was founded on a principle that we have a right to demand a better life for those living with inequality.It does not make sense to require citizens, which are supposed to be equals, to be treated so disproportionately in the providing of health care. If all people in this country are to have a fair chance at the opportunities available, the United States government needs to provide some means of equal health care coverage to all citizens. The way that the current system operates is ethically wrong. It serves to benefit a few and the rest of society either has to pay or suffer.
Works Cited
Angell, Marcia. "Over and Above Excess in the Pharmaceutical Industry" Canadian Medical Association Journal, 7 December 2004
Appleby, Julie. "Average Family Health Policy Nears $11,000" USA Today online, 14 September 2005
Embree, Marlowe C. PhD. "Career Self-Management in the New World of Work" Web site of Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D. 7 January 2003
Frisof, Ken MD. "Affordable Healthcare For All: Turning a Dream into a Reality" Democratic Socialists of America Web site, 6 February 2006
Ginzberg, Eli. The Road to Reform New York, NY: The Free Press, 1994
Galdwell, Malcom. "The Moral Hazard Myth: The Bad Idea Behind Our Failed Healthcare System" The New Yorker online, 22 August 2005
McCuen, Gary E. ed. Health Care and Human Values Hudson, WI: G.E.M. Publications Inc., 1993Labels: Politics, School
|
|
