Unhealthy Health Care Providers

Why is it that so many health care providers--nurses and technicians in particular--are grossly overweight? Many of these people are beyond fat, they're obscenely obese.

I don't understand how someone can care for those who are suffering from diabetes, heart conditions, high blood pressure, etc., (all diseases caused or aggravated by excess weight) and not be motivated to control his or her own weight. Having the end result of overeating right in front of should be motivating but it isn't.

Why? Is this simple denial? (I'm a health care worker. This won't happen to me.) Or is it over-identification with the patients? Or is the solace of food a way of battling the horror of watching over people as they die?

I don't really have an explanation but I'm stunned that these people provide such a poor example of healthy living to their patients.

The Pope and the Sex Abuse Scandal

The Vatican's reaction to Sex Abuse Scandal during Easter Week was predictable if sad. The Fascist, like most popes, is an old guy, surrounded by cronies from his past. They too are old guys. They're all out of touch with why people are so pissed about this.

The Curia Gestapo kept stating that the Church would not allow itself to be intimidated by "petty gossip." They clearly don't understand that the charges are not petty gossip, they are the result of criminal sex abuse by priests who molested children. This went on for generations, covered up by bishops and clearly, Rome itself. This is not gossip. This is fact.

The old guys still think it's a sin to mention the Church's short-comings in public and cause a "scandal." Once again, they misidentify. The scandal is in the molestation, not in bringing it to light.

The Fascist hasn't said a word himself. He probably thinks that's beneath his papal dignity. But the Church is not the authoritarian monster it once was and this crisis will not evaporate. It will only grow larger until it's dealt with.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Sexting and Common Sense

Here's an update on a previous post.

The Illinois Legislature is considering legislation which would exempt teenagers who text nude pictures of themselves or others from criminal charges. Instead, they would be under the supervision of the juvenile court and receive counseling. (For more details: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-sexting-bill-0319-20100318,0,552959.story)

Good to see common sense is alive and well somewhere in the country.

Certainly not in Pennsylvania where a local D.A. was threatening to file felony charges against a teen girl who sent out a topless pix of herself. The federal appeals court barred the D.A. from doing that but what's wrong with this crazy man in the first place? How can a pair of breasts be a felony? The good news is the Pennsylvania Legislature is working at changing the law for teens so they won't be charged with felonies. My question is: Why is sending a nude pix a crime at all? (For more details: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-sexting18-2010mar18,0,806159.story)

Finally, even seniors are getting into it. Can't get any more mainstream than AARP covering the story. Wow, what a shock for those who thought they were technologically hot and chic. Just think of all the wrinkles floating through cyberspace. (More: http://www.aarp.org/family/love/articles/sexting_not_just_for_kids.html?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-FAM&HBX_OU=50&HBX_PK=sexting&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=sexting&utm_campaign=AARP%2BFamily)

Human Rights More Important

Karl Rove was on the radio today and said that America was fighting for democracy in Iraq. His statement illustrates what I think is the flawed thinking of many Americans in dealing with the rest of the world.

Other people aren’t particularly interested in democracy. They want economic and personal security. In other words they want to earn enough to support their families and enjoy peace and freedom as they live their lives.

Consequently we should be emphasizing human rights, rather than democracy. Jefferson said it best: ALL men (people) are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our foreign policy would be a lot more successful if we used our economic and military power to promote those rights for individuals and work with other governments based on how they treat their people rather than what form their government takes. On many levels the Saudis are just as despicable as the Burmese junta. Both governments enrich a small coterie at the expense of the vast majority of citizenry.

We wind up as hypocrites when we denounce the generals’ house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi but do nothing, when we pay the Saudis millions for oil and ignore their discrimination against women and when we grant China most favored nation trade status while they suppress dissidents and make a mockery of free speech with internet censorship.

We can do better.

The War on Drugs

Too bad we didn't learn much from Prohibition. We outlawed booze, created a crime syndicate, saw local police corrupted, had our cities ravaged by gang wars over control and distribution while drinkers flouted the law.

Now we're waging the War on Drugs, supposedly to protect our children. Still, many children, as well as adults regularly use/abuse pot, hash, crack, coke, heroin, meth, ludes, lsd, and prescription pharmaceuticals. "Protection" is mere verbiage, an illusion. Those what want to use will find a way, legal or illegal, and there's no way to "protect" them.

If we look objectively at the War on Drugs, it's not working. We've created the drug cartels in Latin American and forced Mexico into a civil war of sorts which is killing innocent people and threatening the stability of the government. Our policies encourage Afghan farmers to raise poppies and thereby indirectly fund the jihadists.

We also have drug dealers here corrupting the police and judiciary with their bribe money. Gangs terrorize the streets in certain communities as they battle each other over the income from drug sales.

We are also spending billions of dollars a year to arm and equip the police and federal drug agents. Yet the drug problem grows ever larger. We're clearly wasting our money.

Some argue that the more police you have, the greater your security. But the inability of ever increasing numbers of police to eliminate the flow of drugs demonstrates that numbers alone are meaningless.

Why do we have a drug problem? Because they are people who want to use drugs and get high. This is not a good thing but it's a fact. Somewhere around 10% of any society will become addicted to some kind of drug: alcohol, opiates, pharmaceuticals, etc.

What should we do? The same thing we do with alcohol. Legalize all forms of drug use for people over 21. Let companies manufacture and sell drugs and then tax the hell out of their sale. With the tax revenues, we should create anti-drug education programs to warn non-users about the dangers of addiction and we should treat addicts who want to get off the stuff in rehab programs that offer effective medical treatment.

By legalizing drugs we would save billions. No need to fund the drug police. We would also sap the life blood out of the gangs and make our streets safer. We would need fewer police and end a lot of corruption--no one would have to pay off.

Some say, "But if you legalize, terrible things will happen." Can they be any worse than what we have now with teenagers shooting up innocent bystanders with assault rifles and the jails packed with people who like to smoke a joint every now and then but got caught holding a little more than the legal limit? I don't think so.

Will people die from drug overdoses and/or do terrible things? Yes, but no more than they do now. After all, millions of Americans are on drugs even as you're reading this. Legalizing it won't change how addicts act but it will decriminalize them which will save the rest of us a lot of trouble.

Another thing to keep in mind is we tolerate a lot damage from alcoholics. Some drink themselves to death. Others drive and get into horrible accidents and sometimes kill people. They also sometimes cause economic devastation and heartbreak for their families. We put up with that because we learned that outlawing booze creates even larger problems. I don't think addicts and drug users are any worse than drunks and should also be tolerated.

Isn't it time to use some common sense and end the War on Drugs?

The Health Care Debate

Lots of fervor, fury and fast-talk about American Health Care.

Seems to me these are the basic issues:

1. Millions of people don't have health insurance, preventing them from having reasonable health care.

2. The cost of health care increases much faster than the cost of other things.

3. Creating a huge governmental bureaucracy may solve some problems but will surely create others.

4. This is going to cost a lot of money.

The Democrats say this will improve health care for all of us. That's a dubious proposition. Canadians have national health care and it seems to work when you have a cold or need a colonoscopy but many Canadians come to the US for surgery rather than getting in year-long queues. That's not an attractive option.

Republicans claim it's all a socialist plot and an economic disaster which will ruin American Health Care. A bit over the top for the most part but they're right about the cost--huge--and the need to borrow to pay for this at a time when we deep in the hole.

Insurance companies are making tons of money. My personal experience is they love the premiums but only reluctantly pay the bills. I think the way they run their business needs to be redefined and they need to be controlled more tightly.

Am I in favor of Obama's plan? Not really. Government shouldn't be running health care, just protecting me from the excess of profit-mad insurers. But we should do something to cover the millions who have no coverage. That's just wrong. Can't we start there and then take steps to control costs?

It doesn't seem necessary to do everything at once. Step by step may be a better way to proceed, giving everyone a chance to calm down, stop shouting and take a reasoned look at what needs to be done.

Sexting and the NeoPuritans

Sexting--sending sexually explicit text messages via mobile phone. Sometimes containing naked pictures.

People do this, they talk sex, seduction, and share their randy dreams. Sometimes it's called love talk. When adults do it, it's considered indiscreet. When teens under 18 do it, it's a crime.

Yes, grade school and high school kids sending/receiving naked pictures of themselves/their classmates are being arrested and charged with child pornography--the sexual predator charge. (Two recent examples--the first involves middle school students in Valparaiso, IN and the second features high schoolers in Plainfield, IL.)

What's going on here? Have we lost our minds? Hormonal teens are fascinated with sex, experimenting, eager to experience life (just like they have forever) and suddenly it's criminal.

How can this be? What's criminal about a naked body or body parts? Nothing in my mind. You want to send me a picture of yourself without clothes, go ahead. I'll be glad to take a look and I won't think badly of you. And it won't be pornography. And it's not pornography when a twelve-year-old does it either.

When two high school juniors are in the early (or late) stages of the mating ritual and share nude pictures with each other and text about the magical lure of their bodies, this is not a crime. It is not pornographic, it's normal.

No, you didn't do this when you were a kid. You didn't have the technology. Should kids do this? Not really. It's indiscreet and if the nude photo is shared around the school,it can cause problems.

But is the a criminal matter for the police and the courts?

Hell, no. It's a matter for parents who need to teach their children how to be sexually responsible, discreet and thoughtful. And how can it be a crime for a teenage Lothario to have a picture of his naked 15-year-old girl on his phone when the girl herself took the picture and sent to him? Once again, a naked body is not pornographic nor criminal.

So why are kids being charged? Because there is still a large group of Americans who are puritanical and are very uncomfortable with sex, any aspect of sex. But it's out of fashion to stand up and demand that sex go back to its Victorian underground. No, the NeoPuritans can't do that without looking foolish, even to themselves. So they've latched on to the concept of protecting children from predators and have used to engineer a whole set of new blue laws onto the books in the name of "saving our kids from harm."

But they've gone too far and the results are insane. We have customs inspectors searching for proof of crimes committed in other countries, beyond American jurisdiction. We have criminals who have served their time, held without bail, a clear violation of their rights. We also have teeny-boppers charged as pornographers and principals searching phones like members of the vice squad. What the hell has happened? Can't we just sit down and be reasonable about all this?

Why Johnnie Can’t Read—It’s All Dollar Talk

Much talk in the US about school reform and reaching the unreachable, those children growing in poverty who attend segregated, minority schools. Arnie Duncan, recently profiled in the New Yorker, restructured underachieving schools in Chicago, believing that different teacher and a new set of peers learning in different buildings would help the poor performers do better. The Chicago Tribune’s op ed page recently featured a debate about vouchers. Conservatives around the country damn teacher unions for protecting incompetents and refusing to tie pay to student achievement. Charter school’s are also touted as an answer, providing an escape from the strangling bureaucracy and indifference of big city systems.

None of these approaches has succeeded in reaching the hard-core, chronically under-performing student population. Duncan’s approach has failed in Chicago where the school’s have been marginally improved, if at all. Vouchers and charter schools perform a little better but are selective in admissions. They avoid the worst of the worst. No wonder they look good.

Teachers have dug their heels in on performance pay because they know the real key to success is lowering class size. In public and private schools where students perform at high levels, the class size in grades K-12 is somewhere between 10 and 20. In urban public schools, the class size is often 30+.

That means those kids who need the most attention and bring the least amount of middle-class acculturation to learning get the least individual attention. Studies have shown that even the most remediated children learn quickly once they have established a positive, personal relationship with their teacher, something few can do in a mob of 30+.

So why don’t school systems decrease class size? Because adding more teachers will cost a lot of money. If you have 3000 remediated students in a school system being taught in 30+-to-1 classrooms, you have about 100 teachers on the payroll. Put those kids in 15-to-1 classrooms and you have 200 teachers and salary expenses have doubled.

So school systems continue to short change the remediated, poor students, put them and their teachers in a box where they can’t succeed and then blame the students and teachers who are being manipulated for the failures of the administrations. Neat, convenient and completely ridiculous.

Haitian Earthquake and the American Media

Three plus weeks after the earthquake and the only story the American media is telling concerns the “orphans.” No info about food distribution, the shelter situation, the clearing of rubble, the resumption of economic life or the functioning (or lack thereof) of the Haitian government. No, all we get is the maudlin focus on the “orphans” as the networks attempt to position themselves as in touch with “the most vulnerable victims of these horrendous events.”

That strikes me as bull. It’s nothing more than a sickeningly sentimental attempt to wring tears from the public eye, dollars from its wallet and ratings points from a tragedy while failing in its responsibility to tell the full story. The reporting is unbalanced and not really informative except in the most banal, superficial manner.

The missionary kidnappers from Utah who may be charged with human trafficking for trying to remove some thirty kids from Haiti without papers have been amusing as they wandered into the maw of this insatiable news beast which is hungry for “feel good” stories. What was initially reported as a “saving the children” story, the story of altruistic Americans rescuing orphans from chaos and starvation, has become instead a story of smug American arrogance.

It turns out that less than half of the children stopped at the Dominican Republic border were orphans, the others had parents who signed custody over to the missionaries. These missionaries were nonetheless convinced they were bringing the children to a “better life” in America’s material plenty rather than with their parents. That’s a mind-boggling assumption. So is their assumption that their good intentions to “help the children” excused them from observing the laws of Haiti.

Shouldn’t the focus be helping people in need, reuniting families and assisting Haiti in becoming a better place to live rather than ripping off other people’s children. I don’t think this is what Christ had in mind when he said, “Suffer me the little children.”

Corporations Are People Too: Reality or Nightmare

The Supreme Court has removed the ban on corporations engaging in political electioneering because the corps, as persons, have the right to free speech. Really?
Now perhaps you're like me and find the idea of Citibank being a person rather ludicrous. What kind of crazy talk is that?

Lawyer talk as it turns out. It began in 1886 with the Supreme Court (You can find the historical details at: www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0127-page-20100126,0,5726772.column.) and they continue to mystify the rest of us with this strange concept. I mean, Citibank is a thing, it has more assets and funds than I do and it's not one of my fellow citizens.

Should I be worried about this? Damn right I should. Who already hires the most lobbyists in Washington? The corporations. Who has a long history of corrupting public officials (Remember TR's battle with the corps--he lost--and the Tea Pot Dome Scandal of the twenties? Bribery, appropriation of national resources and the debasement of democracy and fair play.)? Yes, the corps. Are these guys to be trusted? Hell, no.

Are they interested in improving American life or their bottom line? What are their priorities--the good of the country or their profitability. I don't need to answer those questions. You already know the answers.

It's time to legislate reality into the books and establish that a corporation as something other than a person. Then it will be time to control corporate activities so they have a less negative impact on how we conduct the business of government in this country.

Andy’s Anguish

Andy Dick, a wickedly brilliant comedian, is at it again--arrested and charged with sexual abuse in WV. (www.tmz.com/2010/01/23/andy-dick-arrested-sexual-abuse-felony/) Reminds me of the old AT&T ad which encouraged people to "reach out and touch someone." I see why they dropped it. Perhaps he was taking the advice of the Yellow Pages to "let your fingers do the walking." But more likely, he wasn’t thinking at all. If he were he’d take his addictions seriously, get into rehab and stop all the craziness.

Nonetheless, his imposition on others is unacceptable. Still—felony sexual abuse? Seems like an extreme charge for a simple grope. Is this reasonable? Or is it just West Virginia where mountain men find having their gonads touched by another man to be a serious crime?

Keep in mind this is Andy Dick, drug-addled pest. Isn’t this just simple pestering?