Joy to the World

The particular event doesn’t matter as much as the reaction.  In the case that finally moved me to write this, it was a gift, but it could just as easily have been any pleasant surprise, or event. In this case it was a gift.  A simple, inexpensive, but thoughtful and personalized gift from good friends.  Because the gift came just before Christmas, these friends very intentionally made very clear that this gift was NOT a Christmas present, but rather a token of appreciation for… well, basically for our friendship.  They mentioned various acts, but each fell under what I would simply consider “friendship,” and so we’ll leave it at that for now.  What’s important in this story is not the gift, but my dearly beloved’s anticipated reaction.

As long as I’ve known my dearly beloved, she has been the worrier.  I may be the analyzer who cannot be content with the surface of anything without wanting to dive into it and ponder its essence, but that’s very different from worry.  I actually enjoy digging around for the “how” or the “why” of something. For me, it is a self-sustaining, perpetual source of joy and wonder, just as it is often a source of consternation to those around me.    To say that my analyzing reduces stress for me is to under-emphasize how pleasurable I actually find it.   My wife, on the other hand, is a worrier, and from what I can see, it’s not because she derives pleasure from it.

When I got home with the gift, she was already in worry mode.  It was 2 days before a Christmas Eve get together of mostly family and close friends – the kind of non-judgmental people who would show up in any situation under any circumstances and just be there and enjoy themselves and each other.  These are people who accept others (us, anyway) for who we are.  They are free of affectation, salt of the earth, easy going, unpretentious, friendly people who have known us most of our lives. They do a good job of at least pretending to love us, warts and all.  There would be no “business associates” or “potential clients” or employers. There would be no need for “acting” or “behaving.” There was no reason to try to impress anyone, and no one expecting to be impressed. We weren’t planning this event due to societal pressure or expectation. There would be no speech-making or performances. In fact, we’ve NEVER planned any events like that at home. (Those kinds of events could be legitimately stressful.  This one would not.) This was going to be as casual and relaxed as a get together could be.  We still had a couple of days to finish getting ready, although “getting ready” basically meant being here, making sure the holiday lights were on outside, and having some snacks and beverages ready. She had just hauled in the first load of groceries, putting us that much closer to being as ready as we could be for this non-event event.  Naturally, she was worrying about it.

I purposefully chose to not mention the gift at that moment because I knew the stress of bringing in the rest of the groceries and getting them put away was too much competition.  We hauled in the groceries.  On the last trip, with counter space running low, she grabbed the gift to move it out of the way but stopped to say, “what IS this?” 

It was my fault.  I shouldn’t have left it on top of the mail – another source of worry – on the kitchen island, but I didn’t want to put it with presents under the tree since I’d been instructed to emphasize that it was NOT a Christmas gift, and because I feared I’d forget about it when just such a crisis as this inevitably popped up, and we’d end up finding it there, under the tree, Christmas morning, which would really defeat any attempt to emphasize that it was NOT a Christmas gift, and so I sat it on the counter and forgot about it for the moment.  Now, trapped by my own lack of planning, and the crisis of having groceries to put away,  I simply said, “open it.”  As she unfolded the tissue paper, I told her "it's from Ryan and Sandy and they specifically instructed me to tell you it is NOT a Christmas gift.  

“We didn’t get them anything.” she said.

“I don’t think we were supposed to. They said it was a 'thank you' for our help with their recent move and some of the work on their new place and because we are friends.  Isn’t it neat?” I replied.

“We didn't even get them a housewarming present. What is it?”

“It’s a, __(it really doesn’t matter what it is, I promise)__, pretty cool, huh?” I said, attempting to remain in what should have been a pleasant moment.

“Oh, yeah.  That is neat.”  (and therein did the pleasantry cease and desist) “They got us a Christmas present last year too.  They even gave each of the girls gift cards.  We’ve never gotten them anything.” 

 

“It’s NOT a Christmas gift.  Sandy specifically, emphatically told me to tell you that.”

“Well why did they give it to us? I feel really bad.  We didn’t even get them a housewarming present.”

"You already said that."

This went on for a little longer as we put the groceries away and she thought out loud about not knowing what we should get them for their new house, but clearly worrying about how important it is that we do, and sooner rather than later.  Soon after, her need for a different source of worry turned back to the party, wrapping presents, food prep, and the usual weeknight evening stuff.

A few hours later, lying in bed, watching Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, me, relaxing before sleep, her, worrying about something else before sleep, on the TV, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jerry Seinfeld talked about the oddities of marriage, conflicts, and the like.  Dreyfus shared with Seinfeld her grandmother’s advice: “always have something to look forward to.”

In that context, I woke up this morning realizing just how special the gift had actually become. I now have something truly epic to look forward to. (aside from actually looking forward to our get-together, which I truly do and would even more if it didn’t worry my dearly beloved so much)

How many people seem to have no purpose in life?  How empty must a life like that be? How many marriages dissolve simply because folks forget to find something to look forward to with each other?  How fortunate am I to have finally stumbled upon an endeavor that solves all of that pointless wandering, and guarantees I will always have a direction…a purpose? I will never be without something to look forward to, something to work toward, and something that rededicates me to the dearly beloved woman I married more than two decades ago.  My life’s work has finally dawned on me.  Before I leave this current configuration, I will teach (convince, cajole, coerce…??) my wife to be able to accept an act of kindness, or an opportunity to have fun, or experience joy for what it is – an act of kindness, or an opportunity to have fun, or experience joy - rather than as a source of worry and fret, or a trigger to examine one’s own perceived flaws…or I’ll die trying!

  If I’m successful, one day I will have the pleasure of seeing my wife’s face light up (I’ve seen this before, I know it can happen) without that light immediately turning to a cloud of worry about all of the subsequent implications.  One day I will experience the joy of seeing her experience joy.  Just joy.  Not fear, worry, or stress over the infinitely-possible-and-thus-not-worth-considering possibilities for next steps.  Just joy.  Joy, that for a moment, has no implications, costs no one else anything, has no consequences.  I really think that’s how joy is supposed to work and I now know it’s my life’s purpose to prove that to her. Joy is not one shoe, always followed by the other, more ominous shoe.  It's just joy.

As adults and parents, I think we're all a little conditioned to think this way. Joy at the birth of our wonderful kids is naturally followed by the fear of how we will screw them up.  Joy at the purchase of our first home is naturally followed by the stress of making payments and maintaining it. Joy as they're accepted to college is followed by sadness that they're leaving. Joy at each milestone is coupled with the inevitable, unavoidable recognition of time passing, but the joy, in and of itself is pure, and need not be associated with anything other than joy. What comes after it could actually be more joy.  That's up to us.   The joy (and honor and privilege) of having guests in our warm, comfortable home, for no other reason than to acknowledge what a blessing it is to have a home and friends and family to share it with, should not be a source of stress.  There should be no implications.  There are no consequences.  There should only be joy.

I now have a mission of convincing my wife of this.  As proud as I am of some of the cool stuff we’ve accomplished, together and alone, I don’t think I’ve ever had a more important mission than this one I’ve just discovered:  unencumbered joy, first to my wife and then to the world!

So thank you, a second time, for the wonderful gift, and happy holidays everyone!

Luth

Out

Don't Read Too Much Into Yesterday's Election Results

Dear Ohio Legislators,
Please don’t read too much into yesterday’s elections.  Even though we voted down Issue 3, which some called the “legal weed” issue, a lot of Ohioans still think we should quit wasting precious resources enforcing outdated, biased, irrational, inefficient weed prohibition and the resulting prison cycle.  We just don’t think we need to amend the Ohio Constitution, or grant an Ohio Code-endorsed monopoly to a handful of “investors” (like we did with the casinos) to do it.  We made that mistake once.

And even though we approved Issue 2, the so called “anti-monopoly” issue, we now know (or will soon learn) that Issue 2 actually paves the way for future monopolies by placing the decision into the hands of voters rather than the Ohio Supreme Court.  Confused?  Let me clarify before we move on. We rejected legal weed because it came with a monopoly, but then we paved the way for future monopolies by approving “anti-monopoly” legislation (Issue 2,) which will allow us to approve future monopolies proposed by future “investors.”  Clear as mud, eh?  Nice work legislating!

What have we learned from this nonsense?  First, that clever and deceptive names for bills work.  I can’t blame you for that.  After all, we’re the ones who elected you.  But don’t take too much from that either.  You may recall that the prevailing sentiment during the last mid-term elections during which you came into power was “re-elect no one,” so all you had to do was show up and you were in. We Ohioans voted not based on your qualifications or willingness or ability to legislate, but solely on getting rid of the incumbents (as long as they were Democrats.)  We got what we paid for with that strategy.

Instead of writing effective new laws or getting rid of outdated, costly, inefficient ones that have proven their lack of value over time, you sat back and let 10 weed investors (ResponsibleOhio) write proposed legislation, and then you sponsored it.  Then, when you realized what you'd done, other folks ran out and created Issue 2, and you sponsored it too. What made it to the ballot yesterday was a mess of nonsense most folks didn’t even bother to try to fully understand.  Who can blame them?

Issues 2 & 3 were in conflict with each other…how is a voter to make sense of them?  Editorials across the state said “vote YES on 2, NO on 3 if you don't want your toddlers to eat weed-sicles” but they never bothered to mention that we didn’t need Issue 2 in order for the monopoly part of Issue 3 to be illegal.  Others said “vote NO on 2 and YES on 3 if you want to end the costly and ineffective prohibition on weed” but they didn’t really mention that in order to do so, you’d be approving a monopoly for 10 investors, which was likely going to be struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court since Ohio has anti-trust/monopoly laws in place already, with or without Issue 2.

So here’s what we really said: (as if you care).  We may still want old marijuana laws to be overturned, but we don’t want to do so by granting a grow-and-distribute monopoly to the 10 organizations who wrote these ridiculous laws like we did with the casino laws, nor do we want the monopoly part of that to become part of Ohio’s Constitution, even though casino owners were successful in that same effort.  So we rejected that proposed monopoly even though it would have legalized weed.   We’ll keep pestering you to get the weed part right and leave out the “grant a monopoly to our rich sponsors as a constitutional amendment” part, and if you continue to ignore us, we’ll elect someone else.

But on Issue 2, you really fooled us and now the result of that deception is part of Ohio’s Constitution.  Rather than beefing up Ohio’s anti-trust/monopoly laws, (which is what we were really supporting when we shot down Issue 3...wondering how it ever happened with the casinos) or leaving well enough alone, we voted into law a means of violating existing anti-trust laws as long as the Secretary of State’s (un-elected) five-member committee puts the monopolistic issue on a ballot and voters approve it.  Notice it doesn’t say we’ll allow a monopoly if there’s a sound, compelling, or even legal reason to do so, as determined by legal experts like Ohio’s Supreme Court, only that voters approve it.  So your “anti-monopoly” law gives voters the power to create future monopolies.  Hooray!  Way to go Ohio voters! Here's how it could work: say Responsible Ohio wants to try again, since they know most Ohioans actually do support legalizing weed.  They get the ear of the Secretary of State whose commission agrees to put their issue on the ballot AGAIN, only this time, instead of it being paired with Issue 2, it gets paired with what Issue 2 created:  a twin proposal.  Half of the twin proposal is a flat out repeat of Issue 3 - legalizing a weed monopoly...and weed.  The other half is a ballot issue asking voters to decide whether or not to allow Issue 3's exception to Ohio's anti-trust laws.  Voters would first have to approve the exception (thus approving the monopoly part in general) and then they could approve (or reject) the actual Issue 3.  That's right, the "anti-monopoly"law sets up a process whereby voters can approve a new monopoly.  Should that be in the voter's hands? Perhaps, but those same voters are the ones who couldn't even grasp that this anti-monopoly proposal codifies the approval of future monopolies!  I think it was better off left to the Supreme Court.  Either way, and yes I'm repeating it again, our approval of the "anti-monopoly" law establishes a procedure for future monopolies.

So, we rejected monopolies in Issue 3 (and killed a veiled attempt at legal weed in doing so)... sacrificing the long overdue decriminalization of marijuana because it was wrapped up in pro-rich and powerful legal monopoly bullshit.  Then we approved Issue 2, which will allow us to create monopolies by ballot issue in the future, probably, I’m guessing here, because YOU called it an “anti-monopoly issue.”

How did we come to this last step before total Idiocracy?  I’m gonna guess this is what happens when we choose legislators not based on their ability to legislate, but based only on the fact that they weren’t there before.  Turns out that’s a worse qualification than “seems fun to have a beer with,” and now we’re stuck with the resulting mess.  We are idiots for electing you.

PS to the Media:  STOP saying Ohio voters rejected a proposal to legalize weed.  We didn't...well, some of us probably did, but the vast majority of us didn't.  We rejected a proposal to monopolize legal weed!  Big difference.  Most Ohioans support, at the very least, medicinal weed, and most Ohio cities have all but decriminalized weed, making minor possession a misdemeanor, and the penalty a fine, in many cases lower than that for a speeding or parking ticket. ...and yet the boogie man has been notably absent.  High school and college kids no longer go to jail for having a joint. Baby steps...baby steps. For god's sake, don't make us sound any dumber than we are.

Sincerely,
An Ohio Voter
aka
LUTH
Out

The Idiocracy (again)

From Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

Sagan's book came out mid-1990, before the movie version of The Idiocracy, before Jon Stewart even thought about retiring from The Daily Show.  Now that Sagan is gone, and Stewart is hanging up the word processor, who will remind us that we should embrace rather than fear intellectual pursuits, skepticism, and continuous improvement?

As we approach this next round of presidential nominations and elections, can we please agree that the whole "best one to have a beer with" requirement was never a good idea? Don't we want a president who is smarter than the rest of us? It's no guarantee that he or she will solve all of our problems, but it's a good hedge against his or her doing something irrational and really stupid.

TLDR: If you're only happy being the smartest guy in the room, you should just kick everyone else out and lock the door.

Luth

Out

Where Can I Gets Me One Of Them There Charlie Hebdo Cartoons?

http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html

I say we all visit the Charlie Hebdo web site and try to buy every cartoon they've run in the past year, set off a bidding war until these dangerous cartoonists can retire peacefully and maybe enough to establish  A Satirist's Security Fund.

Please join Horsepoup in contributing to ASS Fund today!

This effort aims to unite those who value speech as well as those who want the cartoonists to just stop it.  It's a Win-Win, and that's what Horsepoupers are all about!

Let's go...get off your chair and try to make this the biggest ASS anyone's ever seen.

Luth

Out

Apple, U2’s “Gift” Not Welcome

             

So Apple and U2 thought it would be cool to give every iTunes user a free copy of the super group’s latest album, eh?  How silly of them to think folks might welcome 11 free songs!  In fact, what kind of nerve do these giant corporate monsters have to have to take up that much room on the free cloud space they’ve provided us in the first place?  And free music?  Americans don’t want free music.  We recognize the effort artists put into making it, record companies put into manufacturing, promoting, and distributing  it, radio stations put into disseminating it, etc. and so on.  No way do we expect to get that for free! NEVER!

Do these bon-bon-eating, yacht-sailing billionaires not realize the burden they’ve imposed on folks who, for a variety of reasons, simply cannot have free music on their devices?  Really…the NERVE… forcing people to have to delete content if they don’t want it!  That could take seconds out of our busy days!  This invasion is almost as evil as including sample songs or pictures or videos in a copy of Windows!  It’s as invasive as buying a computer with a web browser or security software already installed!  It’s almost as evil as a 90-day trial version of productivity suite software that lets you use it to create all kinds of useful content, but then requires you to buy it AFTER you’ve created that content IF you want to maintain access to those things you’ve created!  What blatant disregard for our valuable memory space and personal time!  This ranks right up there with McD’s handing out free coffee for two weeks, or advertisers flooding our snail mail boxes with flyers and free offers that we then have to pass on to overcrowded landfills. We haven’t seen such disregard for personal privacy and safety since Little Caesar’s Pizza gave customers a second pizza for the price of the first!  That 2^nd pizza was clearly a ploy to get customers used to getting something for nothing, setting the stage for a communist deluge wherein people actually expect to receive the fruits of no one’s labor!  That would be like Burger King getting all the benefits of running a business in America – military protection, safe drinking water, regulated sewage, highways, power grids, stable government, police and fire protection, hundreds of millions of customers who can afford their products, etc. – and yet not having to pay their share of maintaining all of those benefits!  As Americans, the very thought simply sickens us!

Or do we just like to pretend it does? 

I work for an organization with over a quarter of a million employees.  All too often, folks will “reply to all” on an email sent out to a large chunk of those employees.  Shortly thereafter, someone else will “reply to all” with a message asking to be removed from that particular thread of messages, as if it actually took less time to type that message and send it than it would to simply ignore, or delete the original message in the first place.  But that’s not why they send the message asking to be left out.  They send that message (and take more time to do so than just deleting it would) in order to tell everyone on the list that their time is more important than anyone else’s, and surely more important than this message someone thought might apply to everyone on the mail list in the first place.

Oh sure, some of the whiners are complaining that it’s simply a matter of U2 or Apple being presumptuous by assuming that anyone could possibly like this U2 album in the first place.  As individuals, we like to pretend that our musical tastes are so refined and so important that receiving free, unsolicited music is an affront to our highly refined taste…that we may succumb to something new or different… and that such acquiescence would somehow have detrimental sway over the delicate balance of the universe.  We use the opportunity to rail against “sell outs” like U2 (or any other artist who has toiled away for years to gain some tiny little place, and – the horror – make a lot of money,  in an industry that breeds homogeneity.)  But that’s just another way of “replying to all” in order to demonstrate to the captive audience how important we are…how delicate our sensibility is…how much we need our insignificant complaint to be heard by ALL!

The uproar over having to do something with a free gift (other than just ignore or delete it) has become our forum to tell the world to LOOK AT ME.  I’m too important to get free music and my time is too important to be used by deleting or ignoring it. I didn’t get selected for a reality TV show, not enough people have seen my new tattoo…or beard…or newly adopted clothing fad or precious car.  I’m too important to have to ignore an email or music download that only slightly pertains to me, but the world will only know this if I reply to all and complain about it.

What people are really saying when they are offended, bothered, interrupted (or whatever the actual complaint is supposed to be) when they sound off about the burden of receiving free music on their iTunes device is this:  I am an ungrateful, whiny, low-self-esteemed cog in a giant wheel who wants some grease…not THIS grease that U2 and Apple teamed up to give me at significant expense, but some other grease that I’m not really willing to pay for except through my whiny complaining and all that it’s worth.  (ha!  The uproar is a lot like this ‘blog! …and yet here you are, reading it!)

Unlike U2 and Apple, who provided no possible method for the world to hear what people actually think about their generosity, I offer my many readers an easy-to-use comments section wherein you can tell me how much this post has benefited you and made your life better.  Feel free to use it, but please do NOT reply to ALL!  (my readers are WAY too busy doing important things to have to deal with that!)

Luth

Out

Why Are We Here

It’s a rather arrogant question when you think about it, as if everything that makes up the universe is supposed to have some neat, tidy, rational, and for humans, powerful reason for being.  How full of yourself do you need to be to continue asking this question? Squirrels don’t ask it. Rocks don’t ask it. Neither wind, nor musical notes, nor joy, nor sorrow ask it. How much must one’s self esteem be suffering in order to need an answer to such a useless question?

 
Sam Harris has even rededicated himself to the study of neuroscience to try to better understand why so many of us fill this void with religion.  In doing so, he has proposed groundbreaking ideas in the pursuit of ethics, and yet he seems to ignore the fact that Walt Whitman re-phrased the question so we could all understand it, and provided an answer over a century ago. 

 
In his poem O Me! O Life! Whitman puts into words the thoughts of the curious.  I use that word because in a philosophical sense, curiosity certainly has its place.  The problem as Harris and I see it comes when, in the absence of easy answers, we create systematic mythology and then try to get everyone to live according to it as though an answer exists, or is even necessary.   Beyond philosophical consideration, the question serves no purpose.  As such, Whitman asks and answers to such a degree that I am fascinated by the fact that we’re still even talking about it.

O Me! O Life!
By Walt Whitman
 
Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring,
Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish,
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle ever renew’d,
Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me,
Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined,
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?
 
                                       Answer.
That you are here—that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.
 
from Leaves of Grass (1892)
 
Even the non-English majors among us may recognize this poem as it was reintroduced into pop culture by the movie Dead Poets Society.  More recently, Robin Williams’s voice repeats the movie character’s lines for a television commercial for iPads. 

Harris's (no-longer, may he rest in peace) contemporary, Christopher Hitchens, notes that literature was far more suited to and effective at settling life's toughest questions than religion.  His eloquence bears more than paraphrase:

...we (atheists) have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Shiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and -- since there is no other metaphor -- also the soul.

Had Hitch included Whitman in that quote from God is Not Great:  How Religion Spoils Everything, I might not have been as compelled to create this 'blog entry, but who knows.  It is, after all, Friday the 13th, the day of a "super full moon."  I'm not sure what that even means, but it apparently hasn't happened in decades. If there's anything an atheist believes, it's that the powers of the universe are likely beyond our comprehension.

But this is not: The answer is clear, obvious, and only overlooked by fools who cannot see it in front of their faces, and who squander what time they have looking for it.  It is this:

That you are here--that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribue a verse.

Luth
Out

Just vote NO!

Here’s why I believe House Republicans are to blame for Congress’s latest failure to do their job and pass a budget:

As paid, elected representatives, just voting “no” is not an option.  It’s ok for the dirtbag whose sole participation in our representative democracy is paying taxes.  He’s allowed to come home from work, strip down to his boxers, crack open a Milwaukee’s Best, and watch TV all night in his recliner, isolated from, and not contributing to the outside world.  In fact, if he could squeeze in the occasional casting of a ballot among his commute and his beer runs, he’d be more involved than about half the population, and I’d be impressed, but our paid, elected, “professional” representatives have a slightly higher expectation of performance.  They can vote “no,” but they have to propose an alternative to that which they rejected.

So when it comes to this year’s version of Tea Party-induced debt ceiling hostage taking, the fault lies entirely with the House Republicans who have caved to this minority faction by submitting a budget they know won’t pass in an attempt to gain politically in the next election, mount at least the 42^nd failed attempt at blocking the Affordable Healthcare Act, and who offer up nothing in the way of real compromise or alternatives.  House Republicans have in effect just voted “no” by shutting down our government and they’ve failed to propose any alternative plan.  Again, acceptable for beer swilling recliner guy.  Unacceptable from paid elected officials.

You can say neither party is willing to compromise but the fact is, there’s a plan on the table.  The Affordable Healthcare Act is not only a compromise years in the making, it originated as a Republican idea.  It was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law in 2010.  Regardless of what today’s House Republicans (influenced by a marginal group) think of it, (now that it’s too late to keep thinking about) they must either support it, work to improve it, or propose their own version that can be implemented in place of it.  Simply holding the nation hostage arguing over the routine approval of a debt ceiling increase isn’t living up to their responsibility.  It is the equivalent of holding their breath until they get their way.

To those of you who consider the status quo an alternative proposed by House Republicans, consider this:  America’s failed 60-year experiment in for-profit medicine will bankrupt us – individuals and the country – faster than the inevitable $1000 barrel of oil.  Medical care bankruptcy is a recognized specialty these days.  According to CDC and U.S. Court data compiled by NerdWallet.com, it’s the number one reason why individuals file for bankruptcy.  http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2013/06/19/nerdwallet-health-study-estimates-56-million-americans-65-struggle-medical-bills-2013/ 

Economic experts from varied political backgrounds agree individual bankruptcies are the least of our worries.  According to Forbes online U.S. healthcare costs rose 4% even during the worst economic downturn in several generations (2009) to 17.6% of our GDP.  This prompted the article to begin with “Health costs are by far the biggest threat to the nation’s fiscal health in the long run.”  http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0314/health-care-recession-expenditure-bankrupt-america.html

We’re all prone to ignoring economists, but you can’t ignore this:  the U.S. spends twice as much of its GDP on healthcare as the next closest industrialized country but we’ve got very little to show for it.  Our longevity, chronic disease, and even infant mortality rates fall short of countries most Americans can’t find on a map.  The average American family spends $16,000.00 http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-insurance-cost-statistics/  on health insurance per year, but that number is deceptive.  First of all, the average American typically pays less than half of the total premium, while an employer pays the rest.  Second, there are about 47 million non-elderly, uninsured Americans, according to U.S. Census data compiled by the Kaiser Foundation, which means those folks paying that $16,000 per year (and their employers) for insurance are footing some of the bill for the uninsured as well.  Wait you say, that’s contradictory.  Nope. The under/uninsured only file for bankruptcy when they can’t pay the part we don’t already subsidize – talk about socialized medicine!

It comes down to this:  the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is higher than in any other country on Earth and it continues to rise.  The quality of healthcare in the U.S. remains embarrassingly lower than in countries who spend less than half what we do.  In other words, our free-market system is not working.  Unless you mean in terms of pure profit for the giant corporations who lobby Congress to maintain it.  When profit is what drives the healthcare industry, your health falls elsewhere on the priority list.  What’s worse, many of these Tea Party folks who inspired our current government shutdown stand to gain the most from full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  (And once again, ACA began as a Republican plan that encourages participation in the free market healthcare industry.)  According to The Atlantic, “slightly more Republicans (107) than Democrats (99) represent districts where the uninsured percentage is above the national average.”  More than half of the most conservative Republicans represent districts who would benefit from ACA.  Ideology trumps reality every time.  Just as most Americans have no idea what we actually pay for healthcare, we’re too dumb to recognize any attempt at reigning those costs in as beneficial enough to outweigh the corporate lobbyist view. 

Regardless, just voting no and shutting down the entire government, at a cost of around $500 million per day, ain’t helpin’ the already struggling economy.  Just voting no without proposing a real alternative is not acceptable.  Holding the nation hostage in order to counteract a law you’ve already passed is not acceptable.  Waging political warfare while millions of Americans go without just to set yourself up as the ideologue some tiny fraction of the electorate wants to see in the next election is shameful. 

I sincerely hope we remember this longer than we did the last time Congress shut down our government because there’s only a few places where just voting no is acceptable.  Let your Representative know you’ll send him back to the recliner if he doesn’t earn his (or her) keep by ending this sand-kicking soon.

Luth
Out

Can o’ worms

7/31 edit:  Um...so... turns out Stand Your Ground didn't play a role in the trial at all.  The defense went with a straight self defense argument and created sufficient doubt with it to avoid conviction.  So there you go.  Justice is abstract.  Our legal system is concrete.  Zimmerman got his speedy trial and a jury of our peers decided he should walk.  I still have some questions, and the original post below still asks them, but I stand corrected when it comes to Florida's Stand Your Ground laws. (do I at least get a chit for posting my correction at THE TOP rather than burying it in the comments?!)


Does the trial of George Zimmerman suggest that Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws place too high a burden on the prosecution?

Under normal circumstances, doesn’t the prosecution “simply” have to demonstrate that the defendant committed the act in question beyond the shadow of a doubt?  And don’t we know this much beyond that shadow:  George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed Trayvon Martin?

Ah but then Zimmerman claims it was self defense!  Fair enough, but now, with one dude dead, and the other admitting to have shot him, shouldn’t the degree of certainty regarding the claim of self defense meet a similarly high standard?  One would think.  And I’d like to believe that it normally does.

Then comes the 911 call clearly demonstrating that Zimmerman PURSUED Martin.  Without the strange twist of Stand Your Ground, this is the kind of evidence that absolutely destroys any claim of self defense.  You do not pursue someone whom you mortally fear. You do not pursue someone you mortally fear when a law enforcement officer is telling you to stop.  If you do pursue them, and you continue to ignore the directive of the law enforcement officer, then you give up your claim of self defense and your presumed innocence.  If defense was truly your concern, you run the other direction.  If you don't listen to the dispatcher telling you not to chase down the guy you later claim you were deathly afraid of, then you absolutely have given up the assumption of innocence and taken on the burden of proving how these strange sounding circumstances justify your pursuit and killing of an unarmed man.

That is, until we wave the magic wand of Stand Your Ground over all of this.  Suddenly the prosecutor must prove more than that you pursued and killed an unarmed man.  Now the prosecutor must prove, in spite of the fact that you actively went after this guy, that you were NOT frightened for your life, while the jury, apparently, has to assume you were, even though you chased after him instead of running away.

I don’t get it.

One thing I do get: I’ve spent enough time in places where the local authority sanctions the chasing down and killing of people for reasons I never completely understood.  Those places are not pleasant. I won’t be visiting Florida again real soon.

Luth,

Out