Of Concussions and the Planned Parenthood Bill

What would you say to someone who suggested that your favorite football team should be banned from the league because they don’t believe in the seriousness of concussions and don’t agree that your team should have a protocol for dealing with it or taking the doctor’s time in treating it?  That hopefully sounds absurd to you, even if you are foolish enough to agree with the person’s stance on concussion science.  Well, the president’s recent bill that took aim at defunding Planned Parenthood is tantamount to agreeing with your friend, except with much more serious, real-life, consequences.  Not only that, but the people it hurts the most are the working class and lower income Americans that he claims to be trying to help.

You’re not buying it?  Even the president himself complimented Planned Parenthood and recognized the immense amount of important work that they do just months ago.  Yet now, because of a personal belief about a portion of their practice that is ONLY 3% of the services they provide, which NONE OF THE FUNDING is used for anyway, and is LEGAL, he is potentially drastically damaging the welfare of millions of Americans.  Of course, this president is the same person who called the NFL ‘soft’ because of their concussion protocol while calling concussions a ‘little ding to the head’.  So, what should we expect? 

It’s important to know what Planned Parenthood does and who they help.  Roughly 5 MILLION people annually use Planned Parenthood for their sexual and reproductive health care, education, and outreach.  To my point about the bill hurting certain supporters of the president the most, 83% were 20 years old or older and 80% had incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level according to the most recent data from the Government Accountability Office report released in 2015.  No one would argue the essential need for sex education for both adolescents and those in impoverished areas, which is a large component of Planned Parenthood as they provide sex education to 1.5 million people each year.  42% of their services, the largest aspect of the business, go toward sexually transmitted disease screening, resulting in 4.2 million tests and treatments in 2014.  They also perform 270,000 pap smears, 360,000 breast exams, and participated in more than 70 research projects according to the 2014 annual report.  

Perhaps more importantly, 26% of Planned Parenthood patients said that it was the only place they could go for the services they needed according to a 2016 survey.  This is a large number considering that in 2014, 20.2 million women needed publicly funded family planning services.

So, let’s get to the crux of the issue, then.  Many seem fine with sacrificing all of this because of their beliefs about a portion of what the group does legally.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that it’s not as cut and dry as those that only look at the surface think.  First, let’s tackle contraception.  For most, this isn’t that controversial with the argument against contraception usually coming from a religious angle.  Our forefathers were amazingly astute when they put out the idea of separation of church and state.  The concept is applicable here, as they saw the negative effects that can happen when certain beliefs are used to rule a diverse population.  So, what happens when the community loses this access?  You can take a look at Texas:  between 2014 and 2015 they saw around 24,000 unplanned births after funding cuts.  The reasons were obvious, about half of those interviewed said they were unable to access birth control they wanted to use because of cost, lack of insurance, inability to find a clinic, and inability to get a prescription.  What’s frustrating is that those fighting for these cuts don’t look to see the consequences.  Just from this one example, the state and federal taxpayers’ Medicaid costs rise up to $273 million!  I also hate it when I hear that these people should just keep their legs shut if they can’t afford to get pregnant.  Yeah, that is easy to say, but everyone knows that’s not going to happen and undermines attempts to manage the issue to help our society and economy.  I’ve also heard someone say recently that underprivileged women should have to pay for all of their birth control and birth care themselves since they just ‘want to waste taxpayers money’.  As I just stated, this is backwards as in reality it SAVES taxpayer money.  But, also, you can’t say that anyone has less of a right to have children.  I have close relatives who had kids while on food stamps.  Those kids are now some of the most intelligent and talented people you’ll find and the family now makes more money than I do.  But, according to these people, it wasn’t right for them to have their kids!

But, of course, the biggest issue is that of abortion.  I’m not going to delve deeply into it here as this blog would get way too long to give it the detail it deserves.  But, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, I find it disappointing that people are willing to risk all of the positive work that Planned Parenthood does due to a personal belief on a legal aspect of their business of which the funding isn’t even used for.  Again, when you look at it from all angles, it’s just not as cut and dry as some want to believe.  Do you really think the doctors enjoy performing this surgery?  I recently spoke with an OB-GYN who detailed some of the horrors they see with patients who have had illegal abortions.  The reasons vary, but often the life of the woman is at risk.  Without going into the pro-life/pro-choice argument, I’ll just say that these women are usually going to get them done one way or another by the time they’ve made that decision.  At least Planned Parenthood educates them, describes in detail their various options, and performs the surgeries in a safe manner when that is what is decided upon.  You don’t have to approve of the option to realize that having it offered in this scenario saves lives and large amounts of taxpayer money.  Again, looking at the reality of the situation: defunding Planned Parenthood would likely lead to MORE abortions due to the higher number of unintended pregnancies (real-world studies show a 40% reduction in unintended pregnancies with access to birth control.  Two studies showed a 42% and 75% reduction in abortion rate with access to long-acting birth control), an increase in STDs (i.e. 150 new cases of HIV reported in the small town of Austin, IN in 2011 after PP was defunded), an increase in maternal deaths (pregnancy related deaths doubled in 2010-2012 in TX after regulations were enforced), an increase in taxpayer cost (in 2015 the nonpartisan congressional budget office calculated a $130 million increase if PP were defunded), and the list goes on and on.

Unbelievably, I still hear people citing falsehoods from the video that was popularized during the election.  It’s amazing that people will hear what they want to hear, but not acknowledge when their position was proven false such as when during the investigation against planned parenthood the organization was cleared but the people who made the videos were the ones who ended up ultimately charged with crimes!

Yes, I realize it’s a controversial topic that many are passionate to the point of stubbornness about.  And, yes, there are many angles in which you can look at this issue.  In my personal opinion, if you sincerely look at the full picture and scope of the situation and beyond the aspect that makes you uncomfortable you will find that the consequences of the president’s bill allowing the defunding of Planned Parenthood can be damaging to the majority and devastating to many.  We need ‘pragmatic realists’ who see the world as it is and implement solutions and methods to make it a better place; not leaders willing to hurt those that need medical help the most to make a point.  The president who has passed bill after bill to erase regulations meant to combat corruption to help his wealthy friends has once again passed one that very negatively impacts those with lower incomes the most.  There’s a reason why he signed this one quietly and without fanfare.  He probably listened to powerful and/or wealthy supporters and even HE likely knew it was not for the greater good.  What a guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2017/4/14/disastrous-consequences-defunding-planned-parenthood

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/what-happens-when-you-defund-planned-parenthood

Syria Response - Appropriate and Deliberate?

The atrocities that occurred in the Syrian chemical weapon attack were horrific and cannot be allowed to go unpunished.  Were the military strikes the right response?  I’m not a military man and don’t pretend to know all of the details of the situation, but it does look like the site targeted was likely the best possible option for such an operation and it did deliver a message.  However, if your opinion of the president has somehow become more positive after this predictable response, then that is the real surprise.  Even if this was the best response, when you scrutinize the questions why, when, how, and what next you should be a little skeptical.  Take a step back from the sensational coverage and take a critical look at the facts.

·         First, in his typical childish fashion, one of the president’s first statements after the attack was to blame President Obama and past administrations for what happened.  Really?  If you want to make America great again, start by recognizing the efforts of those leaders that came before you, even if you disagree, and know your history.

o   Speaking of President Obama, remember that he wanted to strike against Syria and Trump was one of the most vocal against him doing so, especially without congressional approval.  So, you can’t now fault the guy for listening to you, trying to get said approval, and then trying for a more diplomatic solution when he wasn’t going to get that approval.

o   Secondly on this point, whereas the president blamed Obama, the rest of the leaders involved are now placing the blame on Russia and Assad, where it should be, with their failure to uphold their end of the bargain.

THE WHY and WHEN

·         Are you really gullible enough to believe that the pictures from this attack changed the president’s view?

o   In 2013 he HAD to have witnessed similar, and possibly worse, horrific scenes when he very publicly and vociferously told Obama that it would be a mistake to strike Syria

§  "What I am saying is stay out of Syria," he tweeted Sept. 3, 2013.

§  And, then on Sept. 5, 2013, he wrote, "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

o   So, if that’s the case, then why would his response now be a 180 degree shift?  He spoke the words people wanted to hear, saying that he was moved by the pictures now and it’s changed his attitude.  But, that drastic a shift just doesn’t make sense to me when you look at the whole picture.  He knew it would play well with the majority and he gets to play tough guy.

·         There are multiple factors that made this response predictable:

o   First, knowing his temperament and psychology, as soon as the first reporter asked the question, “What are you going to do about it?” I immediately said that there were going to be bombs dropped.  Many, many people said that he would use his bombs at the first chance he got and he proved them correct.

o    Then, there’s this beauty that demonstrates clearly how he thinks,  “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran.  He is desperate.” 10/09/12

o   In addition, he has to find a way to justify the large increase in defense spending that he has been proposing and these conflicts just so happen to give him leverage for justification.

o   With the talk about Russia being complicit in the chemical attack and their denouncement of the US's strike, the coverage of Russian interference in the election suddenly has taken a back seat.  A smart man once told me that there’s no such thing as coincidences.  I don’t believe that, but this is a pretty big one.

The HOW

·         No man is an island Entire of itself

o   “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” Aug 29, 2013

o   Good idea, right?  The idea is that a single person should not be allowed to drag the country into conflict.  Then, why does this president think he gets a pass for doing that exact thing?

·         The best laid plans

o   As I said, I’m not a military man, but it seems to me that the president should be sure to have a solid follow-up plan, both short and long-term, for something this serious that his administration can clearly communicate.  Instead, it has been confusing and unconvincing leading many to wonder what the plan is.

WHAT NEXT

·         At first it looked like the president didn’t think things through in regards to Russia’s response, how the rebel groups would be affected, Assad’s likely response, what would come next, etc.  But, then you again look at his tweets in 2013 and you realize that he absolutely knows the potential consequences.

o   “We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO” June 13, 2013

·         Sure, people are claiming victory saying that the strike sent a strong message.  Maybe it did.  If it stops the use of chemical weapons, that’s great.  On the other hand, that airfield was back in use less than 48 hours later and bombs were dropped on the same area that the chemical weapons were used on days later.  So, now Assad and the Russians know that they can kill people as long as they don’t use chemical weapons.  Wow.

·         The question that has been asked about Syrian refugees is a legitimate one.  How can you be so moved as to make such a strong statement for the Syrian people as to drop bombs within their borders, but not be willing to take in those trying to flee from those same atrocities?

·         Now there’s talk that Assad must go.  Yes, maybe he does.  But, the shift in how it is being talked about the last couple of days is scary and familiar.  We’ve learned that lesson in a very difficult way, let’s not repeat it.  Most familiar with the situation say that there would be a bloodbath if he were to be forced from power right now with worse parties likely to take over.  It's a very delicate and precarious situation that needs more than just guns and bombs.

·         The president has now made a public move to place ships off the coast of Korea and says he’s ready to act alone.  Once again, he’s trying to show his might with a lot of risk of provoking their unstable leader and putting many lives on the line.

Some are praising the moves.  Some are asking why he has taken a sudden turn from his America First policy that he touted.  But, those that look with unbiased eyes saw this coming.  This is a man who doesn’t believe in (or understand) science or regulations against corruption, but in the all mighty dollar and power by show of force.  Remember, he wanted a military parade at his inauguration!  It really isn’t an about face, but one that is in tune with his personality and feeding his power-hungry ego.  Let’s hope there are enough checks and balances to send successful messages without starting another war.

And, don't forget, this is the same president who stood up for a man accused of sexual harassment the week after declaring April sexual harassment awareness month.  Character and integrity mean a lot to me, as I hope it does for you.  What I ask is that if you agree with the response to Syria, don't be fooled about the reasons or let this one instance make you forget about everything else that has happened.

Inspiration and Admiration: Pauli Murray Home - National Historic Landmark Ceremony

 

For the second weekend in a row, I was unexpectedly inspired and amazed.  I’m embarrassed to admit that one of the most influential, intelligent, righteous, and multi-faceted people in recent history grew up just miles from our home in Durham and I didn’t even know the name.  I would wager that 95% of you reading this haven’t either.  I encourage you to read to the end of this blog to get the full feel for this amazing person.

Being another beautiful day with a cloudless Carolina blue sky, Monette had the great idea to go to a ceremony by the National Park Service and the Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice as they named the Pauli Murray home a National Historic Landmark.  It was a wonderfully moving and motivational ceremony that left me filled with many emotions.  So, who exactly was Pauli Murray?  That is a much more complex question than you can possibly imagine.  I’m not going to be able to do her justice in a short blog, but I’d like to share with you some of what I learned today because I think her mission is still a vitally important one.  I’m not going to list her accomplishments in chronological order in an effort to show why she deserved to be honored simply for her work alone, but then I’ll follow that up by also showing what she had to overcome just to get there.  Much of the following and more can be found at http://paulimurrayproject.org/.

 Even ignoring the background story for now, Pauli attained levels in every aspect of her life that most people can’t even dream about.  She earned her law degree as top in her class.  Her masters thesis, titled The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment, was instrumental in the civil rights movement.  How many people can claim that?  She also was a renowned author, including the books Proud Shoes and States’ Laws on Race and Color, the latter of which was described as the Bible for civil rights lawyers by none other than Thurgood Marshall for such cases as Brown vs. the Board of Education among others.  She gained the attention of influential leaders and became an advisor to Roosevelt as well as John F. Kennedy, who appointed her to his Committee on Civil and Political Rights.  In addition, she took up poetry.  Not surprisingly, she was highly successful here, as well, including the influential poem Dark Testament.  Let’s continue; she was one of the founding members of the National Organization of Women (NOW).  She Co-authored the groundbreaking US Civil Rights Act “Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII”.  And, the list goes on, but I’ll mention just one more.  As if all of this wasn’t enough already, she became a priest in the Episcopal Church … and ended up being named to Episcopal Sainthood in 2012!

Pretty incredible, right?  She obviously deserves recognition and honors for all of that alone.  But, I’ve purposely left out a major part of the story.  You’ve probably already caught onto the fact that she was a woman excelling in an era when they were routinely discriminated against and thought of as inferior.  On top of that, though, I haven’t yet mentioned the fact that she was black.  And, oh yeah, she was also a lesbian.  Now, imagine someone having to overcome that immense amount of stigma to reach the levels that she did – and yet we don’t even recognize her name.  So, now, let me offer a little more detail about how she kept pursuing her goals and striving for equality for all.

I’ll keep it brief and just hit the highlights.  After graduating from high school in Durham, she tried to pay her way through Hunter College in NY, but the stock market crash caused her to lose employment and, thus, leave her studies for the time being.  During this time frame she published several poems and articles as well as her first novel, Angel of the Desert.  She applied to attend school at the University of North Carolina, but was denied because of her ethnicity.  It was during this time that she started a campaign of equality around this denial, including a written letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt that caught the attention of the first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, which led to a life-long friendship.  Like Rosa Parks, she was directly involved in ending segregation on public transport having been arrested on a segregated bus in Virginia.  Then, she went to Howard University and helped form the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), for pacifist protests.  She was the only female in her class, and graduated top in said class as previously mentioned.  This typically came with a chance to attend Harvard Law School, which she wanted to do, but was again denied – this time because of her gender.  So, she went west to the University of California, Berkeley.  It was here where she published her famous thesis.

Her road would still be filled with roadblocks and a series of ‘firsts’.  She lost a post at Cornell University due to McCarthyism amazingly because her references, Eleanor Roosevelt, Thurgood Marshall, and Philip Randolph were thought to be too radical!  Her gender identity and sexual orientation also played a role in her life with the lack of understanding and stigmatization of the times, even going so far as Pauli undergoing psychological help and hormone therapy.  Due to this, she would change her name from Pauline to the more gender neutral Pauli.  However, she continued with her amazing accomplishments and fighting for equality for all, saying that it bothered her that a lot of people said they were fighting for ‘equality’ while still discriminating against certain groups.  She was still not done as she went on to be the first African-American to earn a J.S.D. from Yale in the same year that she served on council that successfully challenged the use of sex and race discrimination in jury selection.  Finally, she even made history when she went into the priesthood as she was another 'first', this time the first African American woman to become a priest, after entering the seminary before the Episcopal church even approved women as candidates for ordination!  And we all now know how that turned out.

At every turn, Pauli Murray had to fight for her right to pursue her dreams.  And, at every turn, she not only succeeded, but fought for others to be able to follow in her footsteps without having to go through the anguish that she did. 

The obvious was brought up in that, after making such great gains in this area over the years we have taken a bit of a step back of late.  However, with recognitions like the Pauli Murray home, which also happens to be the first landmark focused on women’s and LGBTQ history, hopefully we’ll get back on the right track.  And, hopefully, if you’ve continued to read, you’ve gained an appreciation for someone whose name should be remembered and admired.  I know I have.

“True community is based upon equality, mutuality, and reciprocity.  It affirms the richness of individual diversity as well as the common human ties that bind us together.”
– Pauli Murray

New attacks on climate change - Stephen Hawking appears to be correct again!

Part III

Who would you choose to base your decisions on; the experts in whatever field you are studying or the people who are the money behind it?  Both are important, of course, but the experts know a lot more about what is going on.  Sadly, money over intelligence seems to be the theme of late.  This is what is happening with climate change regulations and the coal industry.  So, now let's get to this week’s danger from this administration; their helping of the wealthiest while barely masking it as trying to help create jobs and help the economy.  There are, again, so many examples that it’s impossible to go through them all.  One smaller example to start with along these lines that would annoy almost every American: A bill that was just passed by the senate without garnering any attention lets internet service providers sell your info without asking your permission first.  I’m sure that would have gone over well if we were given the choice.  Who does this bill benefit?

But with the president specifically, it’s obvious that he puts the priorities of the CEOs of big business ahead of anything else.  The president wants to get rid of the fiduciary rule, which requires that financial advisors act in the client’s best interest.  Yes, I’m aware that there are some issues there, but the premise is an important one and smart businessmen can make it work.  He repealed the transparency rule for oil companies requiring that they divulge their payments to foreign governments.  This was put in place to stem corruption, and yet the president listened to these CEOs say that it wasn’t fair to them and didn’t let them compete at the same level, so he repealed it.  That’s like saying that Olympians should be allowed to dope because other countries weren’t as strict with their testing.  Another example of this type of thinking: republican politicians have also been pushing a bill to significantly reduce mining safety regulations – in WV, which had more coal mining deaths anywhere in the US.  It’s pretty obvious who this helps.

Today, though, sets another low as the president rolls back environmental regulations by executive order.  Sure, there may be some overregulation in areas, but there must be a systematic approach and solid scientific reasons for deregulation.  Yet, somehow, this president thinks that he knows better than the smartest people in the world when it comes to climate change.  He’d, again, rather listen to oil execs who have been shown to mislead the public and research on climate change data (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rex-tillerson-may-be-in-hot-water-over-exxonmobil-emails/ar-BByU741?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp) than the top scientists, organizations, and even other governments, world leaders, and his own secretary of defense.  Seriously, Stephen Hawking seems to have been amazingly prophetic when, in June of last year, he said that the biggest problem facing the world is climate change and that pollution coupled with human greed and stupidity are the biggest threats to humankind. 

Jobs are important, and I sincerely feel for the workers in the coal industry.  But, this isn’t the way to solve that problem.  While a few jobs may come back temporarily, our long-term health and survival is essential, and this is not likely to make changes on a large scale in respect to jobs.  In fact, some argue, that it won’t make much difference at all (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/news/economy/trump-power-plants/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom).  Even Mitch McConnell admitted that it wouldn’t bring the coal industry back to the way it was.  

I’m extremely saddened by the focus solely on business and money first with a lack of interest in health, environment, safety, and anything else that truly matters.  The negative consequences of haphazardly reducing climate change regulations are extremely significant and can not, I repeat, can not be ignored! 

Don't point. Lead

Part II

When I was a senior in college, we had an issue with some people on our swim team coming to practice late and partying a little too much during the tough part of our season.  Morale had become a little low at practice and the coach called me into his office.  Being a smart coach and leader he let me know that, as a captain of the team, their actions were a reflection on me and I was to take responsibility for the team’s issues.  “But, Coach, I haven’t had any issues myself and just assumed…”  As soon as I said the word ‘assumed’, he stopped me and raised his voice a bit to let me know what happens when someone ‘assumes’.  His point got across and he taught me that, as a leader, the buck stops with you.  You take responsibility, but at the same time deal with issues to bring up morale and bring about success.  With Coach Denny’s leadership, we went on to win our conference championship.

Great leaders know this, at least innately.  However, our current leader seems unable to take any responsibility other than for his self-proclaimed successes or deal with any issues in a manner that increases overall morale.  We all know someone who just can’t admit when they are wrong, makes baseless claims and point fingers when angered, and who only surrounds themselves by ‘yes men’ to feed their ego.  These are the people that, even if they rise to a certain level, quickly lose credibility and eventually fail to even get good ideas accomplished because of their attitude.  Sadly, this is where we find ourselves with this current administration.

While there are countless examples of this already, we see it yet again this week when the president resorted to, again, repeating a claim that has been shown to be very misleading at best about Hillary Clinton selling uranium to Russia.  While it’s possible that he’s using psychology, knowing that for many people it doesn’t matter if it’s false because with their underlying bias this will cause a pre-formed attitude that is difficult to change, it’s seems more like an immature response to accusations against him.  This is a president who rails against ‘fake news’ while getting himself in trouble more than once by quoting and relying on actual fake news – and amazingly still favors the group he quoted, Fox News, just proving his childishness!  I’m not defending Clinton here because there are a few questions on her end as well, just stating the fact that this is yet another story that the president continues to believe based on a faulty source.  It’s important to know what’s right and wrong, so I’ll put the points about this particular falsehood below this write up if you want the details.

Also, the president has pointed his fingers in many different directions for the health care bill not passing, even changing his mind on degrading and then praising the Freedom Caucus.  He repeatedly and famously claimed that the jobs numbers were false, then claims them to be ‘very real’ when he gets the first set of jobs data.  He railed on the president’s occasional golf trips, but has had 13 golf outings already.  The list goes on and on and he wonders why he’s losing credibility around the world.  He refuses to ever say he was wrong, instead making obscene claims about how he got the information he mentioned or ignoring it altogether.  If he is to truly lead, he MUST change his ways!

The Clinton-uranium claim/myth:

To make it simple here are a few facts from vox and snopes.com:  ‘Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on.  The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.’  And, among other ‘ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.’  Finally and crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”  In addition, the timing of the donations that is referenced don’t match with the conspiracy theory. 

Government's childish response to ACA repeal attempt

There is a dangerous attitude going around right now in which I hear many people saying that they’re just ignoring what’s going on in Washington.  While I understand the sentiment, there are so many things going on that will affect all of us that I implore everyone to stay tuned in and apprised of the latest developments.  I won’t get into finer details today, but let me mention just three of the issues from this past week in three different blogs today:  the response to the repeal attempt of the ACA (Part I), more accusations by the president (Part II), and the consequences of the reductions in climate change regulations (Part III).

Part I

If we were to act the way our government and governmental leaders do, we’d be disregarded, discredited, and, most likely, fired quicker than you can say politics.  Imagine this; you disagree with an idea brought forward by another focus group at work and vociferously demonstrate your reasons.  Then, this group votes to not go forward with their original idea after all.  But, instead of congratulating them on a good decision, you begin to publicly mock those in the group and accuse them of all kinds turmoil.  What would happen to you?  This is similar to what happened last week with the health care bill.  It seems like a comedy, if it didn't happen to be true!

It IS possible to improve healthcare, and yes, it is complicated.  But, first, those involved have got to stop acting like spoiled children and playing politics.  Admit that the ACA has achieved many very good things.  Admit that there are many areas of the ACA that need improving.  However, the logic that it needs to be repealed simply because that’s what a particular candidate ran on is very flawed – their actions should be based on what’s best for Americans/their constituents, period.  We wouldn’t be talking as vehemently about how many people have insurance or trying to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage, for example, if it weren’t for the ACA. 

But, we need buy-in from the top down to ensure that it doesn’t fall, and I fear that many of our elected officials would rather interfere in a way that would hurt Americans simply in an effort to cause the ACA to fail than to give it any chance of succeeding.  Meanwhile, this vindictive thinking is fed by the fact that the democrats are hammering the republicans for the failed repeal rather than praising them on an obviously good decision, a decision that they were fighting for, that was best for the US.  Most of us can see that they all need to grow up, stop blaming, put differences aside, and start working together.  We deserve better than the embarrassment that we have currently.  I know there are very different ideas, but they need to be thoroughly researched, thought out, and not simply dismiss other options such as single-payer that have been proposed.  The president and all members of congress MUST act in our best interest and not just make something fail to prove a point!

NATO - another failed opportunity

NATO – another failed opportunity

Many of us have experienced an organization or club where there is a suggested level of giving to join but the actual amount you give is up to you.  These clubs recognize the importance of membership for both the club and the individual members alike, while realizing that not everyone has the same financial abilities.  Some, of course, will do as little as possible.  But, most are like me, I believe, which is why these clubs succeed.  As an example, one particular club that I donate to has suggested levels of membership and I plan to increase my donation commensurate with paying off student loans among other factors.  This is analogous to how NATO functions.  Without question, it’s obviously a very important organization for the countries involved.  They suggest that member nations target 2% of their GDP for defense spending.  Some nations fall short of this goal but have set it as a target to reach in the future, while the United States, however, spends 3.6% of GDP on defense.

So, one of the very few things that I had been able to support the President on so far was his attempt to encourage other countries to take up more of the responsibility for the funding of NATO.  Well, so much for that.  He once again showed his ineptitude and likely destroyed what gains he had made in this area by playing a heavy hand instead of taking a more positive approach and, much worse, not understanding or knowing how NATO actually functions.  When he made the ridiculous comments about Germany owing NATO money for years of not meeting the 2% GDP, he once again was wrong and lost what credibility he had.  That’s like saying that the people that don’t/can’t give the suggested amount to visit the American Museum of Natural History in New York still owe the remainder of the suggested price afterwards.  To make matters worse, his approach and comments simply upset the other nations and make it harder for them to want to do what he suggests.  It’s simple psychology.

This also feeds into another frustration of mine.  Some people argue that the president’s character and past don’t matter if he attempts to get things done.  Well, you now have a man who has bragged about being ‘smart’ by using all available loopholes to pay as little taxes as possible trying to convince nations that they should increase their funding on a suggested payment amount.  There’s some irony there, no?  And, that’s beside his poor tactics and outright falsehoods.  This embarrassment would normally be a much larger story in any other year but has, sadly yet understandably, gotten relatively little attention with all of the other craziness going on with this administration.

So, instead of something I can get behind, I’m now left with yet another issue in which this administration has managed to disappoint.