"Have you tried not being a mutant?"
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Your new, improved insurance company has now become That Person!
Dear [patient name],
To help you get safe, high-quality medical care, we review your health records -- your doctor visits, prescriptions, lab results, and tests and procedures. We compare your records to the highest standards of care as recommended by the medical community. If we find a way to improve your care -- or find a possible drug interaction -- we contact you. Your doctor may also be notified.
Call your doctor about this health issue
Talk to your doctor about the health message(s) on the following page.
(etc).
To Aetna:
I was motivated to write to you and let you know that I received one of your lovely new letters from your lovely new initiative to offer aid and advice that has neither been solicited nor desired.
I have a health care provider, in case you were not entirely aware. My provider has gone through years of medical school, and has many more years of experience in her field. Most importantly, my provider has actually seen me in person, listened to my concerns, and watched me for every single sign that cannot be possibly conveyed by diagnosis code, like body language, tone of voice, and nonverbal gesticulation, such as Pointing To The Part Where It Hurts.
You are my insurance company. I give you money because the government says that I have to. In return, you are supposed to pay my claims. You do not do this. Failing that, you should at least be able to negotiate a lower rate on my medical bills. You do not do this either. You managed, according to my paperwork, to bravely and skillfully talk down a $500 claim to $200, but what you did not realize was that I had already talked to the secretary and was assured that, if I had no medical insurance at all, I would not be charged more than $170. (Soon, more and more people will realize firsthand that this little game of bureaucratic footsie costs us more than it saves.)
You are not my provider. It is not your job to go peeking through my codes so that you can provide the same service that I can obtain from any harried hypochondriac who knows how to Google their way through WebMD.
My provider entered a variety of codes and information about my claim. For some bizarre reason, you decided to jump upon the least of these, and offer your utterly useless and outdated advice. The specific test that you recommended (via Harvard, alma mater of George W Bush and Barack H Obama, yippity skippity!) is based on information that has not been current for over a decade. My provider has already performed the correct, up-to-date test (as well as doing your recommended check, for different reasons involving my other, more serious health issues) and eliminated both factors as a cause.
In fact, my provider has already found the real cause for this particular issue, and we are already treating the problem properly. This is because she is, as I iterated above, my provider. She has stepped out of the bureaucratic current and actually bothered to see the patient. This has helped her to handle a case which is not (as the case often is for me) kind enough to follow the standard textbook models for your benefit.
I suggest you let my provider do her job. She's really very good at it.
Please save your money so that you can do yours.
To help you get safe, high-quality medical care, we review your health records -- your doctor visits, prescriptions, lab results, and tests and procedures. We compare your records to the highest standards of care as recommended by the medical community. If we find a way to improve your care -- or find a possible drug interaction -- we contact you. Your doctor may also be notified.
Call your doctor about this health issue
Talk to your doctor about the health message(s) on the following page.
(etc).
To Aetna:
I was motivated to write to you and let you know that I received one of your lovely new letters from your lovely new initiative to offer aid and advice that has neither been solicited nor desired.
I have a health care provider, in case you were not entirely aware. My provider has gone through years of medical school, and has many more years of experience in her field. Most importantly, my provider has actually seen me in person, listened to my concerns, and watched me for every single sign that cannot be possibly conveyed by diagnosis code, like body language, tone of voice, and nonverbal gesticulation, such as Pointing To The Part Where It Hurts.
You are my insurance company. I give you money because the government says that I have to. In return, you are supposed to pay my claims. You do not do this. Failing that, you should at least be able to negotiate a lower rate on my medical bills. You do not do this either. You managed, according to my paperwork, to bravely and skillfully talk down a $500 claim to $200, but what you did not realize was that I had already talked to the secretary and was assured that, if I had no medical insurance at all, I would not be charged more than $170. (Soon, more and more people will realize firsthand that this little game of bureaucratic footsie costs us more than it saves.)
You are not my provider. It is not your job to go peeking through my codes so that you can provide the same service that I can obtain from any harried hypochondriac who knows how to Google their way through WebMD.
My provider entered a variety of codes and information about my claim. For some bizarre reason, you decided to jump upon the least of these, and offer your utterly useless and outdated advice. The specific test that you recommended (via Harvard, alma mater of George W Bush and Barack H Obama, yippity skippity!) is based on information that has not been current for over a decade. My provider has already performed the correct, up-to-date test (as well as doing your recommended check, for different reasons involving my other, more serious health issues) and eliminated both factors as a cause.
In fact, my provider has already found the real cause for this particular issue, and we are already treating the problem properly. This is because she is, as I iterated above, my provider. She has stepped out of the bureaucratic current and actually bothered to see the patient. This has helped her to handle a case which is not (as the case often is for me) kind enough to follow the standard textbook models for your benefit.
I suggest you let my provider do her job. She's really very good at it.
Please save your money so that you can do yours.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Daddy's in Mexico with Sally
One of the bigger controversies of 80's films is Steven Spielberg's decision to replace guns with walkie-talkies in the DVD version of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Remember that? Spielberg made a pretty little speech about how he felt the guns were 'too scary' for youngsters and he felt it was wrong to depict them in the movie.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Illegal Immigration and Adverse Possession
I've heard this argument before, by people who are discussing the problems inherent in illegal immigration and amnesty. "It's as if they just walk into your house and say, 'I live here now; feed me!'" I'm not sure how it happened, but that argument developed in my brain until it became a possible solution for the problem we are currently facing: what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are already here?
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Law that Must Not Be Named
I noticed an interesting trend today. I've been hearing it for several months now, without really thinking about it. Today, however, it happened twice in a row, within less than a half hour, from two different people, and I found it rather disturbing. Note: I live in a state full of Independents, but most of them vote Democrat most of the time. Technically I live in a "blue state", though that doesn't quite describe the situation.
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Elliot Rodger and the Willing Women
A few days ago, an angry, bitter, deranged young man who had been shuttled back and forth between two broken homes for much of his formative years enacted the ultimate act of revenge upon the people he had come to blame for his misfortunes. He killed both men and women by stabbing, shooting, and using a motor vehicle, thus making the usual blame-guns narrative a little more difficult to sustain than usual.
Various people have blamed various things. One article blamed his parents for divorcing (while making it clear that he is ultimately at fault for his own actions). Another blamed the video games into which he sought solace. Yet others have claimed that the girls who shunned him were at fault for refusing to have sex with him. They depict these girls, as he did, as bullies who tease certain types of young men by dressing sexily and then having sex with different young men instead.
I'm not going to blame the girls. That's silly. I'm not really 'blaming' anybody but him, in the end. He had a problem and he went off. It happens occasionally, even in the best society. If it hadn't been the girls, he would have found something else. However, I do want to discuss something that this whole situation has uncovered, a profound change in society that I see as a larger problem that daily causes its own griefs and tragedies, never covered on the news. The crux of the statement just happens to be the very point of Elliot Rodger's manifesto: He felt that it was the women's job to seek him out for sex, the way they had been seeking out other men for sex, thus their refusal was a personal slight.
When did our society change so profoundly?
Before Modern Feminism, the man's job was to pursue the woman, and the woman's job was to not make his task easy. I am not talking about flirting with him, making promises only to withdraw them, teasing him for amusement. Her job was to rebuff him unless he met a set of standards that were hardly arbitrary: keep himself clean, show respect for her, and ensure that he had the ability to provide for her should she make herself vulnerable through pregnancy. Then as now, she decided whether he was worthy. Then, unlike now, she required him to commit to her exclusively, first.
"What is the position of women in SNCC? The position of women in SNCC is prone." That quip, made by 1960's activist Stokely Carmichael, seems to describe the position of women in this new liberal feminist 'paradise'. Around the same time, liberal feminist groups worked out the slogan "Women Say Yes to Men Who Say No", which basically promised free sex to men who did not join the military to fight in the Vietnam War. More recently, "Rock the Vote" encouraged women to offer sex only to men who supported Obamacare. Imagine the irony of a bunch of "liberated" women trading sexual favors in return for having someone else buy their hormonally-based contraception.
Now as I said above, Elliot Rodger had problems, and he would have fixated on something. I do have to ask, however, if those women did not grow up in a society that expected them to seek out men and have sex with them while teasing the others with their partly-clothed bodies, would he have developed the belief that it was their job to have sex with him?
Various people have blamed various things. One article blamed his parents for divorcing (while making it clear that he is ultimately at fault for his own actions). Another blamed the video games into which he sought solace. Yet others have claimed that the girls who shunned him were at fault for refusing to have sex with him. They depict these girls, as he did, as bullies who tease certain types of young men by dressing sexily and then having sex with different young men instead.
I'm not going to blame the girls. That's silly. I'm not really 'blaming' anybody but him, in the end. He had a problem and he went off. It happens occasionally, even in the best society. If it hadn't been the girls, he would have found something else. However, I do want to discuss something that this whole situation has uncovered, a profound change in society that I see as a larger problem that daily causes its own griefs and tragedies, never covered on the news. The crux of the statement just happens to be the very point of Elliot Rodger's manifesto: He felt that it was the women's job to seek him out for sex, the way they had been seeking out other men for sex, thus their refusal was a personal slight.
When did our society change so profoundly?
Before Modern Feminism, the man's job was to pursue the woman, and the woman's job was to not make his task easy. I am not talking about flirting with him, making promises only to withdraw them, teasing him for amusement. Her job was to rebuff him unless he met a set of standards that were hardly arbitrary: keep himself clean, show respect for her, and ensure that he had the ability to provide for her should she make herself vulnerable through pregnancy. Then as now, she decided whether he was worthy. Then, unlike now, she required him to commit to her exclusively, first.
"What is the position of women in SNCC? The position of women in SNCC is prone." That quip, made by 1960's activist Stokely Carmichael, seems to describe the position of women in this new liberal feminist 'paradise'. Around the same time, liberal feminist groups worked out the slogan "Women Say Yes to Men Who Say No", which basically promised free sex to men who did not join the military to fight in the Vietnam War. More recently, "Rock the Vote" encouraged women to offer sex only to men who supported Obamacare. Imagine the irony of a bunch of "liberated" women trading sexual favors in return for having someone else buy their hormonally-based contraception.
Now as I said above, Elliot Rodger had problems, and he would have fixated on something. I do have to ask, however, if those women did not grow up in a society that expected them to seek out men and have sex with them while teasing the others with their partly-clothed bodies, would he have developed the belief that it was their job to have sex with him?
Friday, May 23, 2014
New Chapter on Harry Potter Fanfiction
Harry Potter fanfiction "Song of the Hat" chapter 11 is now up.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
In which our main character, Drucilla Bulstrode, finds a quite unlikely (but quite sensible) mentor.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
In which our main character, Drucilla Bulstrode, finds a quite unlikely (but quite sensible) mentor.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
New Chapter on the Harry Potter Fanfiction
The weather has been gorgeous lately. We've had sun and temperatures in the seventies with light to moderate breezes. Naturally, I've been spending my time outside with the kids, and not writing on anything.
I did, however, sign up for a course on writing children's books. We'll see how that goes. More on that later.
I also updated my Harry Potter fanfiction, "Song of the Hat". You can find it here:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/10/The-Song-of-the-Hat
Going to bed now. I'll say more another day.
I did, however, sign up for a course on writing children's books. We'll see how that goes. More on that later.
I also updated my Harry Potter fanfiction, "Song of the Hat". You can find it here:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/10/The-Song-of-the-Hat
Going to bed now. I'll say more another day.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Spontaneous Storytelling for Morality
This morning, I looked around at the general mess left from yesterday's birthday party. I started loading dishes into the dish drainer as my eldest finished his breakfast. Then I told him to clean up the dining and living room.
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Song of the Hat - Fanfiction
I'd like to start my 'renewal of purpose' with the one thing that I have been working on throughout these empty months.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
This is a Harry Potter fanfiction, set about 15 years after the ending of the series. I am writing from the perspective of Millicent Bulstrode's (self-created) younger daughter, focusing on what it's like to be from a Slytherin-strong family in the aftermath of one of the worst wizarding conflicts in recent history.
I'm nine chapters in, and I have a younger sister who is always begging me for more, so this is an active story. Feel free to have a look.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8662596/1/The-Song-of-the-Hat
This is a Harry Potter fanfiction, set about 15 years after the ending of the series. I am writing from the perspective of Millicent Bulstrode's (self-created) younger daughter, focusing on what it's like to be from a Slytherin-strong family in the aftermath of one of the worst wizarding conflicts in recent history.
I'm nine chapters in, and I have a younger sister who is always begging me for more, so this is an active story. Feel free to have a look.
After an unexpected hiatus...
I can't believe it's been almost a year since I last posted on this blog.
Not long after my last couple of posts, my youngest went into the hospital for over a week. It's a long story, but the short of it is that it was an illness-triggered hunger strike, and we worked it out. After that, well... Have you ever noticed that events come in waves? Graduations, new babies, deaths in the family, financial struggles, and home repair... such are the facts of life. I can't blame my absence on these events alone, however. After all, bloggers write about such things, and I have in the past.
I finished the first draft of my first full-out book, a young adult, sci-fi novella.
Being drawn in by promises of fame and fortune that I already knew were a long shot, I tried to establish a proper "author presence" in preparation for revising and publishing my book. I started a new blog, one that didn't contain all these political and religious discussions that I feared might drive away readers who hate what I believe in. I tried to avoid posting anything inflammatory in it. I put up a pretty Facebook page with a pen name that looked believably like a real name. I started looking at publishing companies and trying to polish up the book to be, not only grammatically correct, but grammatically superior.
What happened?
I lost the will to write!
I stopped revising the book. I stopped writing new chapters on other books. I stopped posting on my blog and only wrote comments on other people's articles, some of which could have easily been polished, as many of my previous posts have been, for this blog. I fell into a months-long slump in which I tried desperately to find ways to make money through writing, while being dragged into a list of catch 22's due to new government regulations that prevented me from doing so! In short, I made the mistake of trying to become someone else so that I could lift the financial burden on my family just a little bit.
Yesterday, I realized (with the extremely helpful feedback from a good friend and fellow author) that it just won't work. I have to be who I am, even if it makes people mad at me, or I can't write the stories that I write.
And so here I am, returning to this blog, the place where I have dared to express opinions that are often bizarre and periodically inflammatory. Here I will stay. I can't be a mainstream author - that just isn't me. I will revise and publish my First Book chapter by chapter, probably on Fictionpress, and I plan to offer it in full form on Amazon for whomever still wants it even after reading it. More will follow. (More are already planned.) I'm a storyteller. I tell stories.
So be prepared, on this blog, to continue reading such odd political and religious thoughts as I have from time to time, as well as updates on my writing and other odd things that I do from day to day!
I hope you enjoy the read.
Not long after my last couple of posts, my youngest went into the hospital for over a week. It's a long story, but the short of it is that it was an illness-triggered hunger strike, and we worked it out. After that, well... Have you ever noticed that events come in waves? Graduations, new babies, deaths in the family, financial struggles, and home repair... such are the facts of life. I can't blame my absence on these events alone, however. After all, bloggers write about such things, and I have in the past.
I finished the first draft of my first full-out book, a young adult, sci-fi novella.
Being drawn in by promises of fame and fortune that I already knew were a long shot, I tried to establish a proper "author presence" in preparation for revising and publishing my book. I started a new blog, one that didn't contain all these political and religious discussions that I feared might drive away readers who hate what I believe in. I tried to avoid posting anything inflammatory in it. I put up a pretty Facebook page with a pen name that looked believably like a real name. I started looking at publishing companies and trying to polish up the book to be, not only grammatically correct, but grammatically superior.
What happened?
I lost the will to write!
I stopped revising the book. I stopped writing new chapters on other books. I stopped posting on my blog and only wrote comments on other people's articles, some of which could have easily been polished, as many of my previous posts have been, for this blog. I fell into a months-long slump in which I tried desperately to find ways to make money through writing, while being dragged into a list of catch 22's due to new government regulations that prevented me from doing so! In short, I made the mistake of trying to become someone else so that I could lift the financial burden on my family just a little bit.
Yesterday, I realized (with the extremely helpful feedback from a good friend and fellow author) that it just won't work. I have to be who I am, even if it makes people mad at me, or I can't write the stories that I write.
And so here I am, returning to this blog, the place where I have dared to express opinions that are often bizarre and periodically inflammatory. Here I will stay. I can't be a mainstream author - that just isn't me. I will revise and publish my First Book chapter by chapter, probably on Fictionpress, and I plan to offer it in full form on Amazon for whomever still wants it even after reading it. More will follow. (More are already planned.) I'm a storyteller. I tell stories.
So be prepared, on this blog, to continue reading such odd political and religious thoughts as I have from time to time, as well as updates on my writing and other odd things that I do from day to day!
I hope you enjoy the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)