From the O-R: K***** Y****, 13, and his sisters K****, 9, and K********, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… K***** also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

Today’s roundup brought to you by oh look a feather toy!

An acquaintance of mine shared a post that linked to Peter Singer’s latest piece in the NYT Magazine, “Why We Must Ration Healthcare.” Most of the article focuses on the fact that health care is currently rationed in the U.S., whether by price or by less tangible factors such as ER wait times. I don’t disagree with that part; that’s nothing more than a clear-eyed look at the reality that the American health care system has barriers to accessibility. Where Singer goes off the rails for a demonstration of Able-Bodied Privilege 101, however, is when he discusses how to put a value on human lives as a precursor to putting a value on health care. In order to demonstrate the utility of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in rationing health care, he uses the example of how an able-bodied person reacts to a hypothetical situation in which they become quadraplegic, and how their desire to live changes. He then goes on to present a situation in which persons with disabilities (PWD) are damned if they do and damned if they don’t: he suggests that if a PWD is happy with their life, they don’t need any treatment that would improve their lives, and if a PWD is not happy with their life, then it would be wasteful to spend money on treatment that would improve their lives.

I consider this a must-read for anyone who is new to disability rights. Pizza Diavola does an excellent job showing where Singer’s logic simply falls apart, and in fact his arguments do not make sense without assuming the supremacy of the able body. But disability is not an inherently bad experience; it only becomes this phenomenon of tragedy and suffering when society refuses to provide support for people of all sorts, rather than upholding the narrow and unstable health ideal.

Following Singer’s logic, we would pretty much never seek to improve our lives in any way because to do so would admit that we were not happy with our lives beforehand, and if we were happy with it, then it would be useless to do anything to change it. How this is seen as a rational analysis of New York Times caliber, I’m not sure. But apparently Peter Singer hates the wheel, the microwave oven, cotton fabric (admitting that life wasn’t good enough without versatile and insulating body covering!), the printing press, public education, agriculture, language, music, sunscreen, and buildings (admitting that life wasn’t good enough without shelter from the elements!). Among other things.

But because disability is constructed as a tragedic deviation, we end up with nonsensical, circular arguments such as these. And it has unfortunate influence, and will further marginalize people on the basis of their inherent inferiority and thus forfeited right to life (any life, according to Singer, who would have us all killed or otherwise eliminated rather than complicating things for the currently abled — and no, unfortunately, this is not exaggeration or extrapolation; he has advocated exactly this).

Help Find the Cure for Disablism!

Disablism is a common disorder which can begin in early childhood, though its symptoms are often much more marked in adulthood. Without preventative measures, disablism can grow into a chronic condition that becomes more difficult to cure with time. Early detection and proper treatment are key to helping those with disablism lead stronger, more productive lives.

FAQs

Is disablism contagious?
The jury is still out on this question. While some epidemiologists believe disablism may have a contagious aspect and may spread virulently, other researchers emphasize individual health habits and responsibilities.

What is the treatment?
Treatment varies by the degree to which the patient is affected. Treatment focuses on creating new, nondisablist behaviors. For patients unrectifiably deficient in empathy, legal remedies may be required. Please ask your doctor for more details.

What can I do?
Most importantly, educate yourself about disablism. Ask your health care provider, “am I disablist?” Equally important, watch for early signs of disablism in your loved ones and seek early treatment. Disablism is much more cureable in its early stages than when its victims become homicidal or harm others. In addition, help raise awareness about disablism. Discuss disablism and its harmful effects with others.

For more information and resources on disablism, call the Cure Disablism Network at 1-555-BE HUMAN.

This clip from British tv show That Mitchell and Webb Look has made the rounds as a short and sweet parody of gendered advertising. I think it is also useful as a look at medicalization and the way medical conditions are presented in popular culture.

Transcript:

[Blonde, average-looking woman standing in front of white background, reacting to voiceover by crouching and grimacing, with graphic overlay of radiating circles emphasizing different areas]
Woman: Ow. My stomach!
Man’s voice: Do you suffer from gut agony?
Woman: And my head!
Man’s voice: Tension head? [Woman nods, grimacing] Got that bloated feeling?
Woman [beginning to look slightly surprised and self-conscious]: Ooh…
Man’s voice: Inevitable wrinkles? The beginnings of lady moustache? [Woman covers lower half of face with hands] And now you’ve pissed yourself again? [Woman crosses legs] Women. You’re leaking, aging, hairy, overweight, and everything hurts –
[Young boy walks on set in white dress shirt splattered in colorful stains]
Man’s voice: — and your children’s clothes are filthy! No wonder men long for other, less clammy women. For God’s sake, sort yourself out.
[Image appears on screen of assortment of several hundred personal care products, captioned "APPROX $279.99, THE LOT."]
[Woman walks onto set toward couch, with large, bulging full tote bag on one shoulder]
Woman [tiredly]: Now I’m free to live my own life, my way! [falls back onto couch]
[Scene changes to white man in bathroom with razor]
Man’s voice: Men! Shave and get drunk!
[Man has satisfied look on his face as he opens medicine cabinet, finds glass of beer sitting inside, picks it up and smiles smugly, taking a sip]
Man’s voice: Because you’re already brilliant.
[Man smiles widely at camera as woman's hand appears, groping his chest]

ginmar speaks movingly about mental illness, military veterans, and the phenomenon of “fallen women.” A few pieces; there’s much more.

It’s a pain in the ass to experience. Frankly, you’re no fun to live around during this. I mean, people have been brought up on movie mental illness, where you turn into a sweet, soulful, funny, insightful, tragic, tormented character who Teaches Important Lessons, before dying in a beautiful way that gives the hero or heroine a chance to win an Oscar.

It’s especially bad if you’re a woman, because you’re supposed to live for others, do for others, and do this al behind the scenes. The fact is that women who transgress in some way—bad mothers, not mothers, convicts, the sick, the non-sexually rebellious—-are often abandoned. Women are supposed to stand by their man. What goes unsaid, what’s kept secret is that ill women are resented, dumped, and have to face a dual burden of illness and ill-treatment. There are approximately 6,500 homeless female veterans of this war. Homelessness is often the worst and final stop on the mental illness ladder. It’s bottom. Then, too, homeless women in general are ignored. When the truth is overwhelmingly awful and about women, people just shrug their shoulders and put it down to life. When women get angry about this treatment, they often find the mentally ill label used to stigmatize them.

[...]

Suicide tidied things up neatly. By killing herself, the victim had provided her family with a tragedy over which they could weep, instead of an inconvenient complication who aroused questions that were literally unthinkable for the thinkers of the day. With her gone, so was any reminder.

[...]

What’s interesting is that both male and female soldiers are often regarded in this way: better a flag-draped coffin than a living, complex, and often angry veteran. What a drag. Better a tragedy than a complication [...]

That’s the work of a certain class. The resentment is very much the attitude of the person who discovers that those who serve are also those who know their worth. That wasn’t supposed to be part of the deal. You’re supposed to work round the clock, then disappear when not needed, grateful and humble for scraps from the table.

Which is why maybe soldiers like me, especially women, are often greeted with sadistic gloating when we crumble.

Why it’s important to make a concerted effort to promote historically-un(der)represented classes. You can’t flick a switch and have equality instantly turn on. Even if discrimination ceased to exist instantly, it would still take time to catch up — today’s chemistry-minded three-year-old girls aren’t going to reach the upper echelons of the field for at least another few decades yet. Of course, prejudice doesn’t instantly disappear simply because the law forbids certain manifestations of it in certain settings. So we reach a point where we’re looking to fill President Obama’s cabinet, but the levels from which such people would be pulled are still disproportionately dominant-class folk. This is where it does become worthwhile to pick Ms. Smith over Mr. Doe, even when they are very similarly qualified, simply for the fact that Ms. Smith is a woman.

What the bloggy left don’t understand about Obama’s approach to politics. It’s something I’ve always admired about his judgment. He will make a good-faith effort to work with his opposition to get done what needs done. But if that opposition responds to his good-faith effort with a bad faith effort, he will unapologetically move forward without them. Here’s one reason why this is a Good Thing: it’s a tactical investment. It builds trust in the broader community and fosters relationships with those members of the opposition who might be won over in the future. That’s a worthwhile investment to make, I think.

The consequences of our market-worship culture. What, exactly, makes a standard of living? Is it the fancy consumer goods we all have? A car for every person, a flat-screen TV in every house and a smartphone in every palm? Or is it something else? The security of a stable neighborhood, quality health care that isn’t a hassle, and a good education for your child even if you can’t afford the cost of living in the ritziest districts? These are things the private sector simply don’t excel at.

Self-care is essential. I do not use this word lightly. If these is anything my condition has taught me, it is the importance of learning one’s own boundaries and one’s own needs, and respectfully tending to them. Without this, you aren’t going to be any good to anybody else. You’re going to be more help to someone if you’re doing well yourself. If you’re rushed, stressed, overwhelmed with anxiety, severely lacking in sleep, seriously emotionally preoccupied, down with the flu, whatever — you’re allowed to stop and take care of yourself before you continue your work. Why do we insist that we push forward, always, through whatever challenges we may face? There can be virtue in that. But there can also be folly. I think this is a cultural force that could use some reflection.

After the reaction to a certain post of mine, I think this advice from Jill would be well-heeded in a variety of situations:

I understand that men are in an uncomfortable position when an abortion story is dropped into date conversation. Abortion is socially marked as taboo and horrible and universally emotionally difficult, so I understand why the first reaction is “You poor thing” or “You’re so strong.” I’ve never been in the same position as the author, but I have been on a first date where the guy dropped his almost-abortion story: His girlfriend got pregnant, they decided to terminate the pregnancy, and then she had a miscarriage. It’s not an easy story to respond to, so I fell back on How To Deal With An Awkward Conversation Topic 101: Mirror the other person’s reaction. He seemed like he was sad about the situation, so I think I said something along the lines of, “That sounds like it was really hard, I’m sorry.” And the conversation moved on. I also had a friend who once told me the story of his hugely swollen testicle — like, baseball-sized. In recounting the story, he was cracking himself up, so I laughed along. It’s really not all that hard to take your cues from the person who lived through the unpleasant ordeal. And I think that’s the author’s point: Not that men should universally think abortion is no big deal, but that they should take women as individuals who have varied responses to situations, and who very well may not be traumatized or upset at all — but who may nonetheless be highly annoyed and physically discomforted by a 30-day period. Or they may just be relieved. Or they may be sad, or even devasted. Or they may feel stupid for getting pregnant. Or they may have emotions that are mixed and that evolve. You know, like most human beings.

Read Kate take a righteous hammer to the bullshit that is how we, as a culture, introduce children to disability. Woo go Kate!

OK, this post might seem a bit out of place (and ignore the quick bit of gender-enforcing at the end). It’s just so deeply joyful to be a witness to another person reveling in wonder, over things big or small. Grapefruit isn’t my thing, but you find enjoyment in funny places.

This is why I love slacktivist.

Adam Serwer took all of three posts at TAPPED, I think, to become my favorite writer at the mag (and it’s not for my lack of appreciation for Klein). This kind of reflection is why.

Jindal and Obama could not be more different, and the contrasts begin but don’t end with the fact that one of them changed his name to fit in while the other carried his daddy’s “funny” African moniker all the way to the White House. Last night, the differences were clear: Where Jindal was awkward, Obama was confident. Obama has mastered his voice, Jindal sounded like he didn’t know how to give a speech. Obama had mastered a variety of tones and cadences early in his career, Jindal offered a forced folksiness to a sing-song tune. But perhaps the most telling part of Jindal’s response was his extended introduction of his family history. Until now, the GOP has allowed the press to make the Obama comparisons, last night, Jindal tried to make one himself, an act that was inadvertently self-diminishing.

You can’t find your voice by trying to become what everyone else is. You do that by trying to find what it is that makes you you. See also M’s musings on identity.

I’m off to bed, to dream of miniwheats in the morning.

The eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability, in a nutshell:

• Have a medical condition (mental or physical), or any combination of multiple conditions, which
• Impairs your ability to work for pay, such that
• You cannot pull Substantial Gainful Activity, which is currently (for 2009, non-blind) defined as
• $980/mo.

Do the math: that comes out to a yearly wage of $11,760 before taxes. That doesn’t have a whole lot of buying power, even in flyover country.

I applied for disability, and was approved, in 2005. At the time, SGA was defined as $830/mo. At the same time, I was seeking residence in Orange County, California.* The cheapest place I could find (with access to a reasonable bus route to my university) without rooming with strangers was $860. That was for a “bachelor” apartment without so much as a kitchen.

My disability payment — as a Disabled Adult Child (what an unfortunate name!), it was based on my mother’s work record — was calculated to be, if I remember correctly, $844. That was a California payment — the federal payment at the time was (iirc) $579.

So, my disability payment didn’t so much as cover rent. It didn’t help that my old buddy Gov. Schwarzenegger kept cutting the cost-of-living adjustments for the blind and disabled, in order to balance the budget shortfalls created by his tax cuts for the wealthy. Priorities, people!

Anyhow. SSDI recipients are eligible for Medicare coverage beginning their 24th month of benefits. Which is nice and all, but it meant two years of paying out-of-pocket for the drugs I needed to be well enough to leave the house for more than five minutes at a time. Expensive drugs, needless to say, which had no cheap generic alternatives.

But time passed, and as of February 2007, I became eligible for Medicare. Finally! I was able to seek full treatment for my medical condition, no longer doing the bare minimum to get by.

But as things improved, I faced a conundrum: With the treatment Medicare paid for, I found myself better able to work… enough to earn something approaching SGA… and my condition was only improving. This would have resulted in the loss of my disability benefits, which would also mean the loss of my Medicare coverage. But the private market refused to insure me. Which means I would no longer have been able to afford the treatment that allowed me to work. So my condition would have deteriorated, rendering me, again, disabled. At which point I would be eligible for Medicare… and…

A vexing situation, in my case “solved” by my loss of benefits upon marriage (a feature of the DAC program). Were it not for that — or if I fail to remain married for the rest of my life — I would be back in the same endless circle.

And I know I’m not alone.

- – - – -

*Spare me the “Well, you could have moved somewhere cheaper!” Most people can’t simply pick up and move sight-unseen. Especially the poor and disabled, who can’t exactly hop on a plane and just count on reliable residence and employment being available for them. For the most part, people who do not enjoy considerable economic privilege are geographically immobile. If they haven’t already lived there and they don’t happen to have family there, chances are it isn’t going to be a smart move for them to move there. The ability to research a new area, conduct a job search from afar, and pick up the pieces after the move (you’re going to have to find new: furniture, vehicle, auto and home insurance, health insurance, family doctor, specialists, etc. — the latter which are a huge burden [do you have any idea how hard it is for the health-challenged to find a good, communicative, knowledgeable, effective practitioner to treat their ills?]) is a privilege, and no person should be judged for lack of it.

It was an interesting exercise in not voicing my opinion about, well, anything. Which was difficult, especially when people would persist in trying to talk politics with me. I fell back on talking about how exciting and important this election was, and how awesome it is that so many people are starting to engage with the political process, and how for whatever reason, this election has a lot of people getting up and taking action, which is a Good Thing.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that almost everyone I approached was not only registered, and not only voting (and always for Barack!), but was taking active measure get the people they knew involved, too. We visited a couple African Methodist Episcopal churches (I browsed through a book on women and global poverty at one, which was excellent), where there was naught an unregistered adult to be found. I spent a lot of time in front of the Christian Outreach and doing some door-to-door in the majority-minority parts of town. It was a genuinely exciting job to do, and incredible to see so many people inspired to take action themselves. I took a huge hit for my efforts physically, but I’ll never regret it.

I did notice, however, that while every black person I encountered supported Barack, there were still a considerable amount of them who were adamant that they were not going to vote. And there was only ever one reason they gave for that decision.

“Someone’s going to take him out.”

A lot of people expressed fear, or resigned certainty, that a President Obama would be swiftly assassinated. And you know what? I just don’t know what to say to that. It just makes me profoundly sad.

“He shares our values…”

“Family values”

“American values”

“Traditional values”

If nothing else, this election season makes one thing quite clear: in a sociopolitical context, the word “values” is nothing more than a code word for “white.”

shah8 on historical trends:

One of the things that I have noticed about big F feminism, and this may not be an accurate perception, so feel free to correct me, is that there is a much lower appreciation among women that enlightenment and oppression happens in cycles. Ever greater progression in civil rights is not typically the rule, especially beyond a generation or so. I believe that the current multigenerational expansion has alot to do with industrial revolution backed by fossil fuels.

As a black person mindful of history, I am very conscious in how drastically things can change. One form of slavery, then a cotton gin based slavery, boom! emancipation, then reenslavement through penury and prison labor, then Jim Crow a bit past the high point of that, then civil rights era, and as you can see, an increase and decrease in the quality of life over the past couple of hundred years. Same with jewish people in europe, and pretty much the same with women everywheres.

The shape of the economy tends to dictate what civil rights we have. If women becomes a currency (men who can provide for the largest harem has the most status), then the system feedbacks will force women to have no rights no matter how much women and some men may protest. The only times things change is when things become untenable, or when the dominant party figures to benefit from liberalisation. It hardly ever happens otherwise.

I believe that we are in a retrenching of civil rights. I know some of you think that a defensive crouch is a bad thing, but I have absolutely no illusions about human nature. People, by and large, are truly capable of being rather monstrously evil with little prompting or social conditioning. It takes quite a bit of social conditioning, equitable societies, and empathetic teaching to make people not act in a particularly “innovative” fashion. When things of that nature is going down, due to social or economic disruption, respect for civil liberties goes down as well. I think we *should* be prepared to play defense for awhile.

Deborah Lipp on those damn lazy teenagers.

Teenagers NEED MORE SLEEP. This is totally a fucking fact. They NEED MORE SLEEP. Am I repeating myself? And school is earlier and earlier. My son’s high school day has been from 7:30 am to 2:00 pm. WTF? When I was in high school (hundreds of years ago; I rode a mammoth to school every day), it was 8:30 to 3. What VALUE is there in making them wake up an hour earlier at the time in their lives when they need more sleep than they have since kindergarten?

So they’re tired all the fucking time, and by the way, since they have very limited access to lockers (so they don’t keep drugs and guns there, I guess), and schools don’t have the budget to have extra texts in class (because, oh never mind, you know), they’re also toting a shitload of books back and forth between classes.

So my teen, on days he doesn’t exercise, is exhausted when he gets up and then totes and 20 pound (give or take, it’s fucking HEAVY) backpack to school, and totes it between classes every 45 minutes, often up or down stairs.

But he doesn’t get exercise.

Fuck you, US Government.

Nezua, with righteous anger:

“I just wanted to work a year or two, save, and then go back to my family, but it was not to be.” His case and that of a million others could simply be solved by a temporary work permit as part of our much overdue immigration reform. “The Good Lord knows I was just working and not doing anyone any harm.” This man, like many others, was in fact not guilty. “Knowingly” and “intent” are necessary elements of the charges, but most of the clients we interviewed did not

even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served. This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English. But the lawyer still had to advise him that pleading guilty was in his best interest. He was unable to make a decision.

“You all do and undo,” he said. “So you can do whatever you want with me.” To him we were part of the system keeping him from being deported back to his country, where his children, wife, mother, and sister depended on him. He was their sole support and did not know how they were going to make it with him in jail for 5 months. None of the “options” really mattered to him. Caught between despair and hopelessness, he just wept. He had failed his family, and was devastated. I went for some napkins, but he refused them. I offered him a cup of soda, which he superstitiously declined, saying it could be “poisoned.” His Native American spirit was broken and he could no longer think. He stared for a while at the signature page pretending to read it, although I knew he was actually praying for guidance and protection. Before he signed with a scribble, he said: “God knows you are just doing your job to support your families, and that job is to keep me from supporting mine.”

There was my conflict of interest, well put by a weeping, illiterate man.

—THE TRUE STORY OF POSTVILLE

…

One day those on the “progressive” side of things who think they can pick and choose their little causes and relegate the rest to Pet Issue Land will be stricken with a very real sense of urgency when they realize that you can’t save the tenth floor lounge without saving the lobby and service entrance, too. And that the penthouses will fall the furthest before the fire’s done.

…

And those of us who are sensible and whose bones don’t rattle with the ghost of pat buchanan’s fear know that it’s not like these people care about the damn Census. They don’t care about Xicano blogotov throwers. They don’t want to “take over” your damn corrupt land.

They just. Want. To. Eat. And. Live. Just to be able to move about, working hard for pay. They love their country and very often come here because it is the USGOV’s business and practice to squeeze every bit of profit we can and centralize it here. They don’t want to be here very often. But we shut down the open flow. USGOV is starving. USGOV is broke. USGOV is shaking in its boots…

Yowza.

As an addendum, consider this photograph of Senator Obama, unabashedly courting the Young Women Who Love To See Men Being Shamelessly Goofy With Their Children vote:

Photos from.

Insurers charge women more than they charge men… studies show the effect is all the more pronounced when you’re dealing with health savings accounts and other forms of high-deductible coverage. A Harvard study from a year or so back ran the numbers and found that men under 45 racked up about $500 in yearly, out-of-pocket costs, while women spent closer to $1,200. Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the lead author of the study, summed up the findings starkly. “When an employer switches all his employees into a consumer-driven health plan, it’s the same as giving all the women a $1,000 pay cut, on average, because women on average have $1,000 more in health costs than men.”

Here’s why: For most of their lives, men and women use health care very differently. Men seek episodic care: I sawed off my thumb, fell off a mountain, tried to stop an SUV with my Civic. Contact with the health system is relatively rare, and most everything is covered by insurance. Conversely, women seek a lot of routine care. Check-ups, pap-smears, reproductive health care, etc. The expenses are small, but they’re regular. So when you move towards health coverage where small, regular expenses come out of pocket, you’re erecting financial barriers to the type of care sought by women.

It’s also a good object lesson as to the folly of HSAs. The type of care that HSAs put a higher price tag on, and thus discourage, are small and discrete interactions with the health system. So they disadvantage mammograms and pap smears, but leave lumbar surgeries and angioplasties untouched. Anyone want to guess which category accounts for the majority of our health spending? Anyone want to guess which type of care studies suggest we discourage, and which type of care studies suggest we make more broadly accessible?

Why is this not on the front page of every newspaper in the country right now? On the screen of every cable news watching citizen?

What do you think the effect of this is on single mothers? What do you think the effect of this is on poor women? What do you think the effect of this is on disabled women?

How many people are unnecessarily unemployed because the health care that would allow them to work is denied them? How many people end up in the ER in the middle of the night because they put off routine care for so long, because it was money they didn’t have? Money that could instead go toward their education? Money that could instead go toward their children’s school activities?

How many children lose mothers, husbands wives, parents daughters, when one more woman ends up with cervical cancer because she didn’t have the time or money to spare?

Do we really think we can patch things over by throwing a couple dollars at the Komen foundation and calling it a day?

Think about your own mother. Your sister. Your daughter. Your partner, your lover, your best friend. Do you really want to just let this go because “that’s just how things are”?

I am tagging this one under “privilege” to remind you, the reader, if you are able-bodied and able-minded, that I, the bitch, the cripple, am subsidizing your health care. And that woman in the Section 8 housing who just got evicted because of the money she’s spent getting run around the ringer about those abnormal cells on her Pap test? She is subsidizing the yearly checkup you don’t even bother to get most of the time. And when you go home with your Z-Pack, knowing that you are going to be free and clear after seven days and a $10 copay, know that the money to pay for that came directly out of the pocket of that woman and her two infant children. And I hope you’ll find that redistribution worth it when she dies at 42 of cancer that could have been prevented.

Welfare queens? Taxpayer dollars? Hard-earned money? I don’t want to hear it. Fuck you.

– the women around the world who will be subjected to the stereotype Pfleger reinforces, of the overly emotional, unrelentingly ambitious, single-mindedly selfish woman?

Oh, no: “– Obama?”

Well, shit, I suppose my priorities are out of order.

I’ve been trying to make this point throughout the week, but Paul Waldman is pithier than I am.

Reporters will choose to write about flag pins. They will choose to write about whether some catastrophic, heretofore hidden character flaw has been revealed by a comment a candidate made, or by a comment somebody who knows the candidate made. They are not merely conduits for the campaign’s discourse, they create the campaign’s discourse, as much as the candidates themselves.

Ah, but didn’t Hillary Clinton criticize Barack Obama over his “bitter” comments? Doesn’t that justify a week of relentless, repetitive discussion? Yes, she did (as he has criticized her before on matters equally trivial). But on that day, she probably held half a dozen campaign events and talked about a hundred different things. Had reporters wanted, they could have written stories about what she said about health care, the economy, Iraq, or just about anything else. They chose instead to write about this. The time is long past for them to stop pretending they have nothing to do with how trivial a campaign becomes.

On some level, the media gets this — it’s the essential conflict of interest that runs like the San Andreas fault line right through the center of the profession. But because they haven’t figured out a way to it, they by and large refuse to talk about it, because if you talk about it, then it’s real, and you’re both open to the criticism and obligated to figure out a transparent fix.

What is “the media”? It’s cable television network news. It’s local television news. It’s national news magazines and papers, and local news magazines and papers. It’s advertising companies. It’s film, it’s radio. Talk shows, commentary. It’s even blogs. (No longer are they so marginalized as to be able to avoid the “mainstream” label.)

And this media shapes the discourse in this country, in this state, in this neighborhood.

They do not control every detail, but they provide the basis, the foundation, upon which the populace builds its conventional wisdom.

They know this, obliquely. They know it deep inside, but they can’t allow themselves to acknowledge it, because that would oblige them to pay attention. It would make clear their burden. They would have to take responsibility for every small thing they say. And that is too far-reaching an implication for them to accept it.

And so they don’t. They detach themselves entirely. They say that the people dictate their coverage; they don’t dictate the people’s thoughts. They willfully ignore that this is not a one-way transaction, but a complicated interaction in which all sides feed, and feed off, one another.

But that’s too much to consider. And tomorrow we will undoubtedly hear about the color suit Clinton wore during her campaign events on election night. And it goes on.

Nobody’s ever defended themselves against assault charges by claiming “it doesn’t hurt when I punch me,” and you’d presumably think it pretty ridiculous if they had.

… an alleged lack of patriotism will be the main line of argument against Barack Obama.

And the thing about this argument is that’s not the end of it.

There’s been a lot of talk recently in the feminist blogosphere of dogwhistles. And I would argue that this line of attack is exactly one. The “unpatriotic” whine is usually wrapped up in arguments about Obama being a secret Muslim, a black nationalist, Communist, etc. By extracting out the most innocuous (of the set, not on an absolute scale) and repeating it, the upper punditry and co. can signify to the bottomfeeders that they’re on their side, without explicitly saying so, and while maintaining plausible deniability against accusations of racism.

Two cents.

Dammit, this will never cease to make me angry. For the most part, the disabled already live in poverty, and they have no way of changing that. You usually can’t magically become un-disabled. And disability is, by definition, the inability to just “work harder” to make ends meet. It’s the inability to work enough to live.

And here we go cutting their benefits left and right (including, apparently, again, COLA for the blind and disabled). With an inflation rate of 4.3%. So that we can ease the burden on those poor yacht consumers.

Deep breaths.

As though you caught all the red lights home.

As though you got a few bad letters after your turn at Scrabble.

Isn’t that exactly it, too? You were dealt a bad hand, after all. It’s just a game.

It’s easy for it to be just a game when you never so much as feel the fallout from your own bad decisions — after all, you’ve already been sheltered from feeling the effect of any act God could throw at you.

Sometimes, life isn’t fair — for the rest of us.

Wal-Mart noted in its news release that gift card redemptions were below expectations and that customers appear to be holding gift cards longer and ”using them more often for food and consumables rather than discretionary purchases.”

We’re doomed.

(article), (via)

Typical reactions: “But she was so HAWT before! Now she looks disgusting! Why did she do that?”

Now let’s take a slightly different perspective. Compare:

These are before and after shots from various retouching studios.

How many of the same men (and many women) who react with disgust at the “after” picture of Amy Winehouse will gawk or drool when presented with the “after” pictures of the second set—whether on (or in) a magazine, poster, billboard, advertisement or otherwise?

Bombarded with images like these, is it any wonder that so many women follow Amy’s path?

Via Shakes.

Health is a struggle for me. A daily battle. A battle with myself, against my own body, and against the world that makes it all the more difficult for me to win that fight against my own medical demons. I don’t get the privilege of seeing a doctor once a year — I have had years where I did so, but it was because I was uninsured and only had the means to save up for one doctor’s visit that year, and I suffered for it the other 364 days and change, let me tell you.

Anyway, all this is to say that I’m going to make a point of including my own struggles on this blog. Not that many people will read it, but maybe some people will, and will get the idea that for the sick, health care is not an ideal, it’s not academic, it’s not a principle, it’s not politics, it’s a full time job. It’s something we have to face every day if we want to face the day at all.

So with all that, here’s my latest tale, stolen from my journal, about my fight with my health care provider to provide me my health care.

Let me note before this, that I have been routinely denied prescriptions since moving here PA and becoming eligible for insurance (finally); this doctor’s office has been impossible to deal with, and my insurance just as much so. I’ve been doctor hopping my entire life, trying to find someone who is knowledgeable and respectful. I’ve had two doctors in my lifetime who have given that to me — maybe three, now that I think about it (two of them gynecologists). Trust me, I have seen multitudinous more doctors than that throughout my life. It is tiring. It is aggravating. It is exhausting and painful. It really is the second shift for the sick, fighting the health care system just to get barely adequate care. I just feel like the more people who realize this, maybe the more people who will help fight to make it better.

***

Last Wednesday was the day I trekked out to McMurray for what was to be (I hope, anyway) my last ever visit to this fuckwit doctor’s office. The drive itself was aggravating — McMurray Road, a two-lane road that was quite a pleasant drive all told, is being completely repaved (Peters Township has way too much disposable income), and the workers decided to handle the traffic in the most idiotic way possible (I’ve seen it handled well, and this was not one of those times): let traffic back up for over a mile one way while letting one side through, then switch off. I was stuck in place, unmoving, for over 15 minutes, less than a mile away from the doctor’s office at that point.

I actually called in at that point to let the front desk know I’d be a little late, and the woman was actually nice to me. It’s the first time I’ve ever had someone at that office speak to me pleasantly, ever. Go figure.

Anyway, I got called back, sat down, and lectured on painkiller use for ten minutes by the physician’s assistant.

I am, apparently, supposed to be seen before every refill. Every refill. That’s every months, folks, conceivably for the rest of my life. I’m only twenty one years old. That’s a lot of doctor’s visits.

I made (as you’d expect) disapproving noises as she continued to talk right over me.

“We strongly frown on long term narcotic use. They’re usually meant for short term…”

“I know that.”

“And we don’t use it for fibromyalgia. We recommend anti-inflammatories –”

“Anti-inflammatories DO NOT WORK on fibromyalgia. It is a neurological condition, a disorder of the central nervous system that amplifies pain. If you have osteoporosis and fibromyalgia, then anti-inflammatories will work because osteoporosis causes inflammation, but the only thing fibromyalgia will do is amplify that pain.”

“…” [sort of stunned, doesn't know what to say]

“…”

“… [sigh] Yeah, so…”

… and she continued lecturing right over me, not listening to a word I had to say.

I was informed multiple times, just in case I wasn’t already aware, that a lot of people abuse painkillers and they have to be careful. I would say “I know that” and before I could say anything else she’d keep on lecturing me in that condescending tone of voice.

I told her that two months ago, I was told I would only need to be seen every six months to continue getting my refills. (Indeed, it had been six months since I’d seen the doctor for that purpose at the time.) She said “I don’t know who told you that,” and that their policy was every refill.

My suspicion is that they flagged me as a potential abuser, and she was just bullshitting me. Obviously that is not their policy or else I would not have been getting my refills relatively unimpeded every month up until now. Perhaps their policy changed, but wouldn’t she have said as much instead of just insisting that it is, and always has been, their policy?

So, yes. I am never going back there again. I had already decided as much when this whole fiasco began, and switched PCPs with my insurance the day I found out about all this. I have an appointment two weeks from now.

But when she pulled out the “anti-inflammatories” thing, that just sealed the deal right there. It has been at least ten years since the concept of fibromyalgia as an autoimmune, rheumatic, inflammatory disease fell out of credibility (though lamentably not popularity). TEN years. Central sensitization has been the leading theory for quite some time now. I’ve been up on this research since early high school. Granted, I know doctors are very busy people and they can’t keep up with every single development in the field of medicine, but this is still unforgivable in my mind. I should not know more than my own doctor about my condition — what’s the point in seeing her, then? It would be understandable, perhaps, if it were year-old research. But research that has been widely circulated and accepted for over ten years?

Fuck that.

Back here in 2007, we see the same issues playing out in real time. There’s been a media fuss over the fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over remarks on the YouTube Democratic debates. We readers are only let in on the actual substance of the debate as a way to bring us up to date on who is “winning.” But how does this fight tell us how each candidate will handle the presidency? What does it tell us about how our foreign policy will be conducted? How the world will change as a result of the candidate’s governance? And beyond that, do the policies advocated by each candidate indicate any larger philosophies that will affect how they govern domestically? That will prove to have a real impact on the common citizen’s everyday life? What would that impact be?

No: we’re only told which candidate is ”winning” the game.

It’s left to bloggers to dissect what the game means. The media is obsessing over the trajectory of the ball—while the rest of us are trying to figure out whose window is going to get smashed.