Blocked on social media

I got blocked by another social media page. It started with what should have been a civil discussion about whether refusal to date trans individuals because of their genitalia was transphobic. For the record, I’m married, so I won’t be dating anyone but my wife for the foreseeable future. If I were single, I would have no problem dating trans women. I’ve seen photos of some who are truly beautiful.

When it comes to sexual contact, I don’t want to mess with a penis. I guess that is my hangup. If a trans woman has had ‘bottom surgery’, I would have no problem being sexually intimate with her, assuming she is someone who I have some sort of physical attraction toward and emotional connection with, but that is also true of cisgender women. Based on their logic, if I chose not to date a male, that would make me homophobic.

There are pansexual people who do not care whether a lover is male presenting or female presenting, and are unconcerned about what genitalia the person has. More power to them. I would not deny them the right to be with whomever they wish. Not all of us are quite so open about our sexual interests. Many of us have a more limited palate, so to speak.

I support trans rights, and am appalled by those who attack and even kill trans individuals because they feel they have been ‘tricked’. I don’t ever expect it to happen but if I were getting intimate with a date, only to find she had a penis, I’d stop and say that I was sorry, but I didn’t think I was comfortable proceeding. No accusations, no threats, no violence necessary.

I had this argument with another extreme trans activist. I pointed out that Janet Mock, who is a trans woman and a prominent trans activist, has said she is heteronormative. By that I assume she is sexually interested in males, presumably with a penis. I said that by their standard, Janet Mock would be transphobic. The other person said that was correct, and that she was.

After the person told me that essentially even trans individuals and trans activists were transphobic for having genital preferences, I realized there was no chance of a sane conversation with them. I think I got blocked by that page as well. Of course I’ve gotten blocked by other pages run by TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) who objected to my support for the trans community.

In the latest incident, I asked if a person who did not date black people was racist. Several people made it clear that they felt it was. I said it was not, because racism, unlike prejudice, includes the power to oppress. That is why black people who dislike whites may be prejudiced, but are not racist. Stokely Carmichael said, “Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power.” I was told to shut up and listen.

For the record, during the time when I was dating, I did not ever date a black woman. Generally I am more attracted to Caucasian features. Now I did not meet her until after we were both married, but I met one black woman who was smart and charming, and who I’d gladly have dated. Even now, were I single and were she interested, I know one black woman who I’d happily date.

It bothers me that society seems to be getting pushed to extremes. At one end we have the far right who hate LGBT, blacks, Muslims, Jews, people born in other countries, people who speak languages other than their own. At the other end, we have extreme activists who label any personal preferences, even those which do not deny rights to others, as being hateful. Can we not just dial everything down a few notches?

If you block me because I disagree with you, and do it in a civil manner, then what does that say about you? A functioning civil society is built on open discussion and on compromise. If we lose the ability to compromise or to discuss our differences, then our society itself is in serious trouble.

Life With Linda - Holiday Edition

For those of you who know Linda, this will be no surprise. Linda had a holiday cruise planned with a couple of her friends - just a three day cruise to the Bahamas. Pretty straightforward, for most people. Departure today, from Port Canaveral, which is roughly a 3 hour drive from us. Her travel companions wanted to leave at 10am to allow ample time to get there even with traffic snags.

Linda, of course could not pack beforehand. We went to a holiday party yesterday and got home around 7:30pm, but Linda decided she could not pack last night, and of course had nothing packed previously. She decided to get up at 7am today to pack - this from the woman who commonly sleeps until 10am. She did get up around 7am, and of course is almost frantic in her packing. Surprisingly by 10am, she was packed and ready to leave our apartment - overpacked, but still packed. She had two full carry-on size suitcases plus other bags for a three day trip.

We still had to get to Tampa to meet up with her friends, but we were there by about 10:30 - not bad for Linda. So, as I said, a 3 hour drive over to Port Canaveral. About 2pm, I get a phone call, in her haste to pack, instead of grabbing her passport, she grabbed mine. She was at the check-in with no valid passport - for herself, anyway. Now boarding was till about 4:30 and I still had something I had to do in Tampa, so there was no way for me to drive her passport to her in time.

The customs official said they could not accept a photo of her passport, but needed a photo of her birth certificate. I never remembered even seeing her birth certificate. She told me to look in a 2 drawer file for a folder marked 'important papers' or something similar. I was on the phone with her while looking at each folder there, and nada. She then suggested looking in the drawer where we normally have our passports. I spent five minutes going through things there before finally finding a copy of her birth certificate.

I then had to shoot a photo on my phone, and text the photo to Linda's phone. Simple, at that point. I did, and later got a call from one of her companions that they were safely boarded. I was wondering if I'd have to drive to Port Canaveral to pick her up and bring her home. Her companions didn't want to go without her, so the vacations of three people would have been screwed up if I hadn't found the document. Just a part of life with Linda.

Toward a New War on Poverty

Some fifty years ago, Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. We have made some progress since then, mostly in reducing the percentage of families living in poverty. We have stalled, however, and if we are to make any additional progress, we must rethink how we go about this.

Simply providing income supplements and the like will not suffice to do this. First there are too many people who mistakenly believe that people receiving help are lazy and unwilling to work. For that reason, they not only do not want to expand assistance, they want to reduce or eliminate it. Second, most recipients don’t want a handout, they want a hand up.

How then can we help? It requires a multi-pronged approach. We must make sure these people have jobs, even if government must provide those jobs. We have striking infrastructure needs in the United States. We have roads and bridges that need repair. We also need expansion of roads and bridges, among other things. This requires not only the laborers to do the work but many support people behind them.

The greatest expansion of the American economy in modern times occurred when we committed as a nation to building more and better roads and bridges. I’m sure there are those who would choose to call this a government boondoggle, but the work desperately needs to be done in the near future. This puts people in paying jobs, rather than leaving them on the dole, so to speak.

It improves transportation in this country, and puts money in the hands of the poorest residents. Those people will spend the money they receive, in addition to paying taxes on it, which will increase demand and boost the economy as a whole. It gives low income people more self respect and undercuts the notion that these people are ‘unwilling to work’.

We must make sure the jobs we create pay a living wage. Minimum wage as it stands is a starvation wage. It is impossible to support a family on a full time minimum wage job. These jobs also need to include benefits, especially health insurance. Far too many private employers try to sidestep providing benefits, and those with very low incomes cannot afford health insurance.

Beyond that, it puts pressure on private employers to match this. If the government will guarantee a job with full time hours at a living wage and health insurance, other employers will be compelled by the job market to do likewise. There must also be free or subsidized child care provided for low income parents. In some instances, there may also be the need for transportation assistance most likely in the form of effective and efficient public transit. Child care and public transit can provide additional jobs, to boot.

That begins, but will not complete the process of eliminating poverty. There are additional steps needed. We need more educated workers for the economy of the future. We must invest in better public education. We need better funding for K-12 education, along with more support for community colleges and state universities. Too many people complete a college education with tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. This is unacceptable and discourages too many people from pursuing higher education.

We need job training for those people for whom college education is not the best solution. This may be young people who are more suited to other types of work, along with older workers whose jobs may have been eliminated due to changes in the economy. We need to make these people employable, and education is the most effective solution.

We need to have free or heavily subsidized birth control available for women of all ages. Far too many young women are unable to afford birth control, resulting in unplanned pregnancies and becoming single mothers. This often disrupts their education and makes it harder for them to find and keep employment. It also results in abortions that would be quite unnecessary if inexpensive birth control were available.

Finally, we have too many people who have been made unemployable by having been convicted of drug crimes, particularly marijuana. We need to legalize or at the very least decriminalize marijuana and fully pardon those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. The current criminal record makes employers hesitate to hire them, in many cases forcing them into either poverty or a life of crime. Beyond that, we spend billions of dollars pursuing and jailing people for these non-violent crimes.

I suppose some would say this sounds prohibitively expensive, but I suspect it would cost but a fraction of what we currently spend on weapons for the military, some of which the military does not even want, but which are purchased to benefit corporations in the districts of key members of Congress. In the long run, making these people productive members of society will benefit us far more than the monetary cost.

Gender 101

I see comments from people whose understanding of gender seems limited to a simplistic view of middle school health class. They have comments on gender like xx is female and xy is male, period, or if you have a penis you are male and a vagina makes you female. They take chromosomes or a gender assignment at birth and feel it is something immutable. The World Health Organizations wrote, “Developmental biology suggests that a strict belief in absolute sexual dimorphism is incorrect.”

First off, there are sex chromosome combinations other than xx and xy. Some other combinations found in humans are xxy, xxxy, xxxxy, and xyy, as well as only one x chromosome. People who have a genetic mosaic may have some cells with xx and other cells with xy, in the same person. Individuals with multiple x chromosomes along with a y, will tend to be more female both physically and mentally than those with only one.

Secondly, there are a variety of possibilities with respect to genitalia. There are individuals who are ‘intersex’, who may be born with both sets, or have ‘indeterminate’ genitalia. In the past, some of those have had their genitalia “corrected” by doctors shortly after birth. What the doctors change them to may not match the sex chromosome combination of the individual, much less how they see themselves while growing up. Then we also find that some folks with xx chromosomes develop male genitalia, while some with xy develop female genitalia. It isn’t as simple as xx equals vagina equals female, or xy equals penis equals male.

Gender may also be affected by hormonal influences in the womb or in the world after being born. The human biochemistry is rather complex and genes may be turned on or off by environmental triggers. There are genes involved in brain sexual differentiation, which may or may not coincide with those genes determining genitalia. Some folks assume that mid 20th century European views of gender are the only correct view, yet there have been multiple human cultures where gender and sexuality have been seen in different ways, as a spectrum, or as with many Native American groups allowing for ‘two spirit’ people encompassing both female and male.

Those who demean transgender or non-binary people have little real understanding of the biology of gender.

Transgender

I’ve seen a lot of commentary about transgender folks, along with the usual thing from some cisgender people about how it’s all about the chromosomes and xx versus xy. They seem to believe an xx is immutably female and xy is immutably male and also that there are no other combinations of sex chromosomes.

First, according to biologists, there are at least six combinations of sex chromosomes which are viable in humans. There are also xxy, xxxy, xxxy and xyy, all of which have some male expression, but with varying levels of testosterone. There are also women who have only a single x chromosome, who have lower levels of female characteristics.

Some close minded folks also say it all is based on genitalia – someone with a penis is male and someone with a vagina is female, end of story. Again, it isn’t quite that simple. First some folks are born intersex, some with both sets of genitalia, and others with ambiguous genitalia. If someone has both a penis and vagina, are they male or female?

In addition, one’s genitalia don’t always match one’s sex chromosomes. There are xy individuals who are born with a vagina, and xx who are born with a penis. It all has to do with hormonal influences in the womb, but clearly when the chromosomes don’t match the genitalia that one was born with it is not a simple one thing or another.

Another study seemed to show that there were two testosterone surges in vitro that determine genital expression, as well as gender identification and even sexual attraction. Individuals who are xy and don’t get both surges may be have a vagina or be gay or transgender. Individuals who are xx and do get the testosterone surges may have a penis or be lesbian or transgender.

Human biology with respect to gender is far more complicated that the close minded biological determinalists seem to think. Beyond that, gender outside humans is far from the simple male female binary that some think it is. Some species change genders during their lifetime due to various factors, including temperature, age, and the number of members of each gender present.

I saw one person who said we can’t have transgender people in the military because they are more prone to suicide and emotional problems. This completely ignores that fact that the higher rates of suicide and emotional problems are largely due to people like him denying the gender of those transgender people, as well as misgendering them, telling them they are sick or misguided, and often bullying them. All those things contribute to both a higher rate of suicide and higher rates of emotional problems. They are the product of societal influences on transgender people, not something inherent in being transgender.

At one point, gender dysphoria was categorized as a type of mental illness. Psychology changes as we learn more about the mind. Hysteria in women was considered a mental illness. Drapetomania was thought a mental illness in slaves causing them irrationally to want to be free. At one point, doctors performed frontal lobotomies on people to “cure” them of mental disorders. They also did electroshock “therapy” for depression and other issues. As science has progressed, so has our understanding and definition of what constitutes mental illness. Freud thought penis envy and Oedipus complex were real psychiatric disorders.

Transgender people just want to be themselves, to be who they know they are, and to live free of discrimination, free of bullying, and free of fear.

Theism versus Deism and Religion

I was listening to my local NPR radio station, and heard an Oxford professor talking, among other things, about the difference between theism and deism. The distinction they made was that a theist believes there is a God, who is actively involved in the day to day affairs of this world. A deist believes there is a higher power, but that higher power is not actively involved in this world. As a contrast, an agnostic is not sure whether there is a higher power, while an atheist says there is no higher power. This analysis is not dependent on the religion itself, but spans religions.

Now within those groups, there are some subgroups. Among the theists, there are the fanatic fundamentalists, who take offense at those who do not follow their religion or even their little slice of a religion. Among the atheists, there are what I refer to as anti-theists, who belittle and denigrate any religious belief or religious believers. The distinction between the two sets of extremists, is that some fanatic fundamentalists engage in verbal attacks on “non-believers”, while an even more extreme group engage in violent physical attacks on non-believers. Anti-theists limit themselves to verbal attacks on believers.

Not all fundamentalists are fanatic fundamentalists. Many merely proselytize to non-believers, or “pray for them”. I frankly take offense at any attacks on those who believe differently – whether verbal or physical and whether fanatic fundamentalist or anti-theist. The physical attacks may cause injury or death, but those engaging in physical attacks are mercifully few. Far more common are the verbal attacks, and they may result in psychological scars. I no more excuse the Richard Dawkins of the world than I do ISIS, or those murdering abortion providers, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

I cannot condone or accept those who attack others for their beliefs or non-beliefs, whether those attacks are physical or verbal. I’ve had to drop some friends who were too adamantly abusive of differing beliefs. I will also stand up against those attacking others based on beliefs. Fortunately, most people are not so fanatical either pro or anti religion.  I do not wish ill upon those people, I only wish they would find some measure of understanding, empathy, and sympathy for those who believe differently.

At this point in my life, I would likely be best characterized as a deist. I occasionally sway slightly toward agnosticism, and would say that while I think there probably is a higher power in the universe, I really don’t profess to know with any certainty. I also have zero concern as to what anyone else believes. I have no desire to sway the beliefs of any others, and would say that what I believe suits me, but may not suit anyone else. Interestingly, from what I’ve read, many of the founding fathers of the United States were deists. It also appears that Albert Einstein was a deist, albeit of Jewish descent.

How did I get to where I am in my beliefs? I was born into a Christian family, and raised as a Christian, baptized shortly after birth and I regularly attended religious services through my teens. It was in my teens that I began to shift somewhat. In Christian belief, what matters is that a person believe Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate, and that he was associated with certain miracles, including the virgin birth, rising from the dead, and performing miracles during his life. In Christianity, creed determines one’s outcome. A Christian who believes as above is guaranteed a place in the Christian heaven, almost regardless of how they lived their life. A person who does not accept Christian dogma is denied a place in heaven, regardless of how well they may have lived their life.

That bothered me, as I reached my late teens. A Christian who committed heinous acts, but accepted the dogma and “sincerely repented” went to heaven, while someone who did not accept the dogma but lived an exemplary life was consigned to hell. To me, the miracles associated with Jesus, were not of significance, at best they were window dressing. Treating others decently, and behaving decently was of significance to me. I felt unable to follow a creed so opposed to my own beliefs.

I maintained a belief in some sort of higher power, but determined I could not in good faith call myself a Christian. I studied Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism for many years, and found much of value in all. I found standards of behavior which I could easily adhere to, and which I agreed with. I found some measure of enlightenment, though never nirvana. Where I had difficulty was that Theravada Buddhism says explicitly that there is no deity. I didn’t feel comfortable with taking that step.

What I found in my reading, was that in Judaism, it is not the name you pray to that matters, or even whether you pray. It is not the creed you follow that matters either. What matters is how you live your life and how you treat others. In accepting Judaism, I committed to attempting to follow Jewish dietary laws, as I understood them, as well as Jewish laws regarding treatment of others. I already largely accepted the laws regarding treatment of others, but gave up pork and shellfish, which was of little consequence. Now I know many Jews who eat pork and shellfish, but I felt that was symbolic of my commitment.

Trump's First 100 Days

I am not a Trump supporter and I never was. I’ve been a registered Democrat since I first registered to vote many years ago. Before the election cycle began, I wanted Elizabeth Warren to be the Democratic candidate, but she chose not to run. In the primaries I supported and voted for Bernie Sanders because I liked his vision for the country. In the general election, I voted for Hillary, though I might not have been enthusiastic, because I knew she was so very much better than the alternative.

Trump has thus far proven to be just as bad as I expected or feared. He as filled his administration with fat cats, relatives, right wing ideologues, and outright bigots. He claimed to be a friend of the LGBT community, but has rolled back protections for them and condoned those who would discriminate against them. He has rolled back protections for the environment. He has rolled back protections for women, particularly in employment, health care, contraception, and abortion. He promised to deport only ‘the worst of the worst’ but instead has arrested and deported or tried to deport, law abiding immigrants including legal immigrants and US citizens.  He lies incessantly, even when the only thing that benefits is his own ego. He appears to be moving us toward a ground war in Syria and toward a nuclear confrontation with North Korea. He has supported policies that roll back the already limited controls on firearms. He has tried to implement policies with little or no forethought and planning. He has lashed out at and attacked anyone who challenges his policies, positions, or ideas – however half baked. He has promoted policies that hurt average workers for the benefit of already wealthy business owners. To date, there is nothing positive I can say about his administration.

I want an America where everyone is treated with dignity and respect regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or income level. I want an America that cares more about helping, educating, healing, and employing Americans, and less about killing people in other countries. I want an America where workers and consumers interests are at least as important as those of business owners. I want an America that cares about all its people, not just the already wealthy. I want an America where freedom means more than the right to own a gun and spout bigoted statements. I want an America with economic security and health care for all its citizens.

Feminism & Matriarchy

I saw someone bemoaning feminism and whining that we’re now living in a matriarchy. What planet is this person living on? What country are they speaking of? In the United States, the president and vice president are male, while 80% of the cabinet, including the four most senior positions are male. In the Senate 79% of the senators are male, and 81% of House members are also male. In the corporate world, 94% of the CEOs at S&P 500 companies are male. If this is a matriarchy, they are disguising it pretty damned well.

Sexual disparity exists – it is alive and well. According to a survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 125 occupations in which comparable pay data was available, men made more than women in all but one of those. Across the labor force as a whole, women make roughly 80% of what men do, even adjusting for different occupational choices. Now you might think that is skewed by various factors. Even among physicians and surgeons, women only make about 62% of what men make.

The difference is not due to education. Women now receive almost half of the law degrees and medical degrees, yet those are among the occupations with some of the highest gender pay differences. Most of the jobs with the smallest pay difference require only a high school education, making them also the lowest paid jobs for both genders.

Beyond that, women comprise the vast majority of victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. If there is supposed to be some sort of matriarchy, shouldn’t we see better outcomes for women across a variety of things? We don’t see that – at least those of us who are genuinely looking for factual data. Some people want to cherry pick specific incidents that support whatever conclusion they want to draw. That is not the whole picture, and in fact does not comprise the truth.

Tax Day Rant

Since income tax time has rolled around again, it is time for me to do another tax rant. No, this is not a libertarian rant about taxes being theft. Neither is this a rant about government being too big. I am reminded of the quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, who said in one of his opinions, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” I won’t pretend to have all the answers, but some folks have inaccurate or distorted views of the whole system.

First, too many people look only at income taxes, ignoring all other forms of taxes, and decide that the wealthy pay a disproportionate share of taxes. There is some truth in this since they pay a larger portion of the income taxes than their proportion of the population. But they also have a much larger portion of total income than their proportion of the population.

When you take a deeper look, basing tax policy only on income taxes is itself a distortion. Taxes consist of more than just federal income taxes. There are also payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and the like. The latter fall far more heavily on middle and lower income people than on the truly wealthy. There is an income cap on most payroll taxes, so no tax is paid on income above the cap.

Sales taxes are based on consumption, and middle and lower income people consume most, if not all, of their income. When your income is lower, you have to spend it all in order to survive. Property taxes again fall more heavily on middle and lower incomes. Property taxes are levied on real property, while the truly wealthy hold more of their assets in intangibles.

There have been studies done of total tax burden across income groups. What they found was that when total tax burdens from all taxes are added up, lower and middle income people pay about as large a portion of their income in taxes as the wealthy. So no, total tax burdens are not falling mostly on the wealthy.

Some would ask why we should have to pay taxes at all. I suppose that is a fair question, but what do we as a society gain from those taxes? We primarily get roads and bridges, schools, police, fire departments, and national defense. Without government expenditures on roads and bridges, we would either be driving on toll roads or unpaved trails. Due to high levels of anti-government sentiment, these roads and bridges are not being maintained as well as they should. Does the fault lie in government or in anti-government rhetoric?

People complain about the public school system, which is also paid for by taxes. Some time back, people got a “results driven focus” with respect to schools. What that pushed the public schools to was a curriculum based around standardized tests that purportedly measured a student’s progress. For most of the 20th century, when large numbers of children were very effectively educated in public schools, there was only a minimal focus on standardized testing. Teachers now have to ‘teach to the test’, instead of genuinely educating students and building an intellectual curiosity in them. That is less the fault of the public schools and more the fault of societal demands on those schools. Also attitudes towards public schools seemed to change when integration arrived in the 1970s and beyond.

Few people seem to have much problem with paying for police, fire, or national defense. What we hear is a chorus of “what about welfare – why should I pay taxes to support lazy people only looking for a handout?” When you look at total federal spending, only a tiny percentage goes to ‘welfare’ type expenditures. Far more goes to social security, medicare, defense spending, and interest on the national debt.

Some would say that even if only a small part of the budget goes to welfare, we shouldn’t be supporting lazy people and ‘welfare queens’. When you look, you find adults are not allowed to remain on welfare for more than a couple of years. Beyond that, most welfare recipients are children, the elderly, and the disabled. They aren’t lazy or looking for a handout, they just want to survive with a little food, clothing, and shelter. Of the adults receiving welfare, the majority work during the time they receive benefits, and most would work more if they could.

Some would ask why we have to support them at all. Perhaps it is because we don’t want children to starve just because their parents can’t find work. I know some folks would say those people should be working and supporting their families. I agree and they should make enough money working to allow them to support their families.

Given that we have roads and bridges falling apart, maybe for able bodied adults, we should replace ‘welfare’ with guaranteed employment at a living wage. Instead of giving assistance to the adults, give them a job repairing infrastructure and doing the support work related to that. Make the pay high enough to allow them to pay for food, shelter, clothing, and transportation.

That does some important things – we don’t have “lazy people asking for a handout”, we don’t have children without food or shelter, and we give people the chance to gain self respect through employment. It might well cost more than traditional welfare, but we would also gain by improving infrastructure, increasing economic activity, and ironically increasing tax revenues. All those people earning income would be paying taxes – income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. Maybe I’m wrong, but to me it is a win-win-win proposition.

One thing that is unquestionable is that we need genuine income tax reform. The current tax code is so complex that most people cannot do their own taxes. Those who do manage, nearly always use purchased software in order to handle it. We can reduce deductions and reduce marginal tax rates without crippling government. I know there are folks who want nothing more than to cripple government, but most of us rely on government far more than we realize.

Health Care Changes

Changes in health care have been a hot topic just lately – very hot and very heated in fact. Sometimes it seems as though the discussions have shed far more heat than light on the subject.

I’ll see if I can shed a little more light than heat, though I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject. I will express my opinions and try not to upset too many people, too much. Although given the topic, if I don’t upset anybody, I probably have not said anything worth saying.

Speaking of heat, some liberal commentators, (and not just Jimmy Carter), have claimed that racism is behind the vehemence of some of the right wing response. At first, I tended to agree, but after looking closer, for the majority, I don’t think that is the case.

There are a number of people who seem to believe very strongly that government, whether federal, state, or local, does not really represent them, is not concerned with or looking out for their interests, and they frankly fear and mistrust government and any sort of government program.

They do not agree with Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us.” Some people will not negotiate change, because compromise is surrender and change is bad. Unfortunately, this is a grim prognosis for any needed changes.

Let’s start with some things that most of us should be able to agree on. First, the United States has some of the best health care available anywhere. We have many of the best doctors and the best facilities in the world. As Americans, we have available to us the best medicines, the best equipment, and the most advanced treatments that can be found. We can all agree that we don’t want changes to our health care system that would jeopardize that.

The vast majority of Americans are covered by some form of health insurance, and the majority are happy with what they have. We probably don’t want to lose that either.

But not everything is perfect, and the system we have certainly has room for improvement. About 46 million people, or about 15% of the population has no health insurance coverage. Now, arguably at least some of those are healthy and feel no need for health insurance, but many others are not.

One study, and I cannot vouch for either the methodology or bias of the authors, rated the United States against 18 other western industrialized countries in preventable deaths. The US placed the worst in that study with 109.7 preventable deaths per 100,000 people. You can compare that with France which was the best at only 64.8 per 100,000 people. The authors concluded that the lack of access to health insurance by some Americans contributed to that result.

Similarly, if you look at the C.I.A. World Factbook, you will find that a number of countries including France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and even Cuba have lower infant mortality rates than we do.

According to an AARP study about 90,000 Americans die each year from infections they contract during a hospital stay.

Since, as a country, we spend almost 1-1/2 times as much as any other country per person on health care, should we not be able to do better than this?

A study in the American Journal of Medicine found that 62% of the bankruptcies in the United States were largely due to medical bills, and 78% of the people with a medically related bankruptcy HAD health insurance.

Think about it. What that means is that the average middle income, working American might only be one serious illness away from financial ruin.

For what it’s worth, there are few, if any, medically related bankruptcies in England , France , Germany , Japan , or Canada – each of which has a universal health care system.

We can argue the merits and demerits of the various national health care systems, but that discussion could be endless. Each system, whether ours or any of the ones I’ve mentioned has its strengths and its weaknesses.

Further, I don’t think we want to simply replace our system with any of the other systems. But that does not mean that we cannot improve our system of health care. And it does not mean that we cannot learn some things from what they ARE doing right.

I’d like to be able to discuss in depth, the plusses and minuses of the health care proposal, but at last count, I think there were four different bills in the Senate, and additional bills in the House of Representatives. Each of those bills seems to be revised almost daily, and some are literally over 1,000 pages long. So we could spend the rest of the month looking at different proposals and still not be comprehensive. I can try to discuss some proposals and see whether they are really part of the bills under consideration, and throw out some ideas to think about.

As I said, most Americans like the health insurance that they have, and I think we can agree that Americans should be able to keep the health insurance they have, if they want to. No one should be forced into a “one size fits all” plan. At this point I do not believe that any of the serious proposals would require Americans to give up their current insurance.

I’ve said that we have many of the best doctors and facilities in the world, and I think we can agree that we do not want to lose those. We have those, because the doctors have the freedom to establish practices and manage them without undue interference. We can probably agree that we do not want to force doctors to become government employees, nor force health care facilities to become government facilities.

Many other countries with excellent national health care programs, have built them around private medical practices and facilities. There is no reason we cannot do likewise. Again, none of the major proposals aim to require doctors to become employees of the government, or health facilities to be government owned.

We have the most advanced drugs & treatments available in the world, and we certainly don’t want to lose those either. I don’t know about the medical equipment industry, but the pharmaceutical companies have agreed to price concessions as a part of the health care proposals under consideration, and have signed on to back those proposals. Based on that, I think we can safely say that we should still have access to the best medicines available.

Now that we have touched on a couple of easy ones, why don’t we get to a topic that has generated a lot of heat. There has been a lot of talk of “Death Panels”, with some prominent politicians and commentators claiming that the health care proposal under consideration set up death panels which would review elderly people and decide who among them should live and who allowed simply to die. Well, as we noted, there is not one proposal but several, second most of the proposals are works in progress, not finished legislation. None of them of the health care bills set up ‘death panels’.

There was a proposal, which has since been removed, about a subject on which people are deeply divided. It would have paid for voluntary consultations for elderly people about end of life medical decisions. To show how divided we are about that, a survey by USA Today asked if it is better to keep a terminally ill person alive as long as possible regardless of the expense, and 40% of Americans agreed, while 48% said that the costs should be weighed.

This is really a personal or family decision and not everyone feels the same way – some people have living wills where they specify what may or may not be done to keep them alive, if doing so will only prolong their death, rather than making them healthy again.

According to statistics published by the Center for Disease Control & the US Department of Health & Human Services, the average remaining life expectancy for a 65 year old person in the US is 18.7 years as of 2005. So when someone goes on Medicare, they will incur medical expenses for about 19 years. So what portion of Medicare medical expenses do you think goes to people in their last year of life? Perhaps about 1/19th or about 5%, maybe more say 10%? It is actually 27%.

We really are talking terminally ill people here. No reasonable person would say that people should be denied care because of expense if that care would cure them. What is reasonable, though? How do we decide? To a large degree, it has to be a very individual decision. Some decisions might be easy – we probably don’t provide a liver transplant to someone with advanced coronary artery disease, diabetes, and COPD. But regardless, we are dealing with human beings – someone’s mother, father, son, daughter.

Have I depressed you enough yet? The problem is that we speak of health care in the abstract, but we are really dealing with people’s lives. While we perpetuate a system that allows people to die unnecessarily for lack of health, then that system is killing human beings. Perhaps in what we attempt to do, we should take into account the medical maxim – first, do no harm.

One argument that I’ve heard is that a major problem for health care providers and with health care reform is tort reform. Some claim that outrageous malpractice settlements push up malpractice insurance premiums driving some doctors out of their practices and pushing up the cost of health care for everyone. Certainly some specialties have real problems – obstetricians & surgeons face some of the largest expenses.

But according to the Congressional Budget Office, medical malpractice costs amount to 2% of direct health care spending. Still that could be somewhat understated, since doctors may sometimes order unnecessary tests to forestall claims of malpractice. Then again, how many times have each of us heard of people who had diseases which were not uncovered until those additional tests that the doctors might not have wanted.

Tort reform usually means capping awards for punitive damages, which seems to make sense until you or a family member is injured, maimed, or killed due to the negligence of a doctor. Mind you, we all know that the vast majority of doctors are not negligent or remiss in their practice of medicine. But we also know that there are some doctors who are occasionally so. Those who are drive up the costs for the many who are not. Is tort reform the answer? Part of it, perhaps, but there may not be an easy answer.

Perhaps a larger cost for the average doctor than malpractice insurance is the administrative cost of filling out and submitting insurance paperwork. I have not seen any comprehensive studies, but I have seen estimates that the average doctor’s practice will spend $70,000 per year, just filing insurance forms. I would have to think that if health care reform could push down those admin costs that would provide savings to all of us.

Then again you also have insurance company overhead. For the average insurance company, overhead is about 20% of premiums, while about 80% goes to covering medical expenses. Medicare in comparison spends about 3% on administrative expenses and about 97% on medical care. I have also heard that is not completely comparable, but should we not be able to save something there?

A study in the 2003 New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 24% of total health care expenditures in the US were for administrative costs. Their estimate was that 71% was unnecessary, when compared to administrative costs for the Canadian national health care plan. Their dollar estimate in 2003 was that the waste amounted to $286 billion each year. That is far more than most of the proposed plans are expected to cost.

There is a lot to consider with the health care proposals that are on the table. It is far more complex than screaming about socialized medicine, communism, or death panels. It is far more complex than we could possibly cover this evening. We are not likely even to all agree on a solution, but if we can start to agree that there is a problem, and come to some agreement as to the nature of some of the problems we face, maybe we can begin to work toward some sort of resolution – not a resolution that will make everyone happy, but still a resolution.

I will end with a paraphrase from Franklin Roosevelt, “But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are [dying]. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.”

Trump is a Loser

Trump is a loser – bigly. He promised that his first priority was to repeal and replace Obamacare. He said he’d provide coverage to more people, for lower cost, and with better care. He worked with Paul Ryan and got a bill created that would result in 24 million people losing coverage.

The bill also allowed insurance companies to reject people for pre-existing conditions, unlike Obamacare. It increased costs to low income people and even to middle income folks over 50 years of age. It also eliminated any requirements for policies to cover maternity care, and of course birth control.

Who benefitted from Trump’s plan? Wealthy people did, because he reduced taxes on them. Insurance companies did because he eliminated requirements they disliked. Insurance executives did, because restrictions on tax deductibility for their salaries were eliminated.

Who opposed the plan? First, hard right wingers did, because they wanted no kind of government related health insurance. Moderate Republicans who were listening to their constituents opposed it, as well. So did doctor’s associations, hospital associations, and AARP.

Trump is a whiner. He said the bill lost because no Democrats supported it, so that made it the fault of the Democrats. He has to be kidding. After eight years of the GOP opposing everything Obama proposed, the Democrats should roll over and back something that only 17% of the voters approved.

Beyond that, not a single Republican, either in the House or the Senate voted for Obamacare. Guess what, Obama and the Democratic leadership got it passed anyhow. How did they do it? Well, they worked to get interest groups behind the bill. They horse traded to get something for enough people to get the necessary support.

Trump calls himself a deal maker and a negotiator. Well if he really were, he’d have been able to negotiate with the various stakeholders and make the deals necessary to get his bill passed. He couldn’t get it done because he is a failure and a loser, who has to blame everyone else for his failures.

Trump is a loser, a whiner, and a failure, who can’t keep his promises or make a deal or negotiate a damned thing except ways to make money for himself. Even then he has to cheat his investors, lenders, contractors, and customers to make money. The only things he is good at are lying, bullshitting, stealing, and selling himself.

Trumpcare

So now we are told that if Congress does not pass the bill tomorrow, Trump will drop it and move on to something else. I thought Trump was supposed to be a winner. When Obama was getting Obamacare passed, there were months of review and negotiation. The president and Congress tried to line up support both in Congress and among the general public for the bill.

They made changes, and worked with various constituencies to get what they needed to get a bill passed. That sounds to me like a winner. What doesn’t sound like a winner is to walk away if you can’t get everything you want and get it now. That sounds very much like a loser. Seriously, if they really wanted to get a replacement passed for Obamacare, they would look at the objections to the new bill, negotiate with the opponents, and find enough common ground to build a consensus on.

A winner doesn’t walk away just because things aren’t going their way. A master negotiator will negotiate and find commonalities among the needs of the stakeholders. They would get on a bully pulpit and convince the voters that this is the best solution. But it is already obvious that the only people for whom this is the best solution are the insurance companies and the most wealthy Americans.

We already know the new bill would cause some 24 million people to lose insurance. We already know that for the poorest people and the older people costs would rise significantly. We know many important things like preexisting conditions, maternity coverage, and many other types of women’s coverage would be eliminated. We know funding for medical care for poor people would be slashed. We know there would be massive tax breaks for the wealthiest 10% of the populations.

The latest poll I saw said the new bill had the support of only 17% of voters. Criminy, Obamacare had far more support both when it passed and most of the time since. Members of Congress have been deluged by their constituents telling them not to vote for this bill. Physician groups, hospital groups, and AARP all oppose this bill.

When he ran for office, Trump said he would get a replacement for Obamacare that would have more people covered, for less money, and with better care. Instead he is pushing a bill which seems to do exactly the opposite. Perhaps oddly enough, the people who would be most hurt by this bill are people who voted for Trump.

A smart man, upon seeing both the effects of the bill and the opposition to it, would have called for major changes, or would quietly have disavowed himself from it. Trump has done neither, but then again, he is more bluster than smarts, quite apart from what he claims. One can only hope that Trumpcare goes down in flames.

Heteronormativity & Transphobia

For the squeamish, the following does get a little graphic in places – just fair warning.

I found myself in an argument with a radical trans activist recently. It started around the question of whether one would date a trans person. Now my sexual orientation is attraction to women. I like the shape of a woman’s face, I like the shape of a woman’s body, and I like ‘interacting’ with female body parts.

I stated that were I currently dating, I would have no problem with dating a trans woman. There are some trans women who I find quite attractive, and the fact that they are trans would not bother me. I said however that for me to be sexually intimate with a trans woman, she’d have to have a vagina, meaning she’d have to have had what is referred to as ‘bottom surgery’ or vaginoplasty or gender correction surgery AKA gender reassignment surgery.

There are extreme trans activists, including one I argued with online, who would call me transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a trans woman who still had a penis. As I said, I like ‘interacting’ with female body parts. That is not limited to breasts, but also includes the vagina. I’m quite happy to give a woman pleasure by stimulating her vagina in a number of ways, including stroking, oral stimulation, and regular old coitus.

I prefer to get my pleasure through coitus, particularly face to face, and don’t much care which of several face to face positions we use. I’ve done ‘doggy style’ and it’s fine, but prefer to be able to see and kiss the woman during sex. Unlike many men, I don’t care to receive oral stimulation, and don’t care for anal either. I’ve tried both, and they just aren’t the same. At the same time, I have no interest whatsoever in pleasuring someone else’s penis through oral or anal. Let me be clear, I don't care what gender one was assigned at birth, nor do I care what gender you identify as now. If the person has a penis, I have no interest in having sex with them.

That’s my hangup, and while it excludes some trans women, it isn’t because they are trans, but is because they have not fully transitioned. Now I understand some trans women choose not to fully transition, and still others do not have the funds for the surgery. Some live and dress as women and undergo hormone replacement therapy, but do not have their genitalia rebuilt from male to female genitalia.

That is their right, and if they identify as women, I have no problem with considering them to be women, but if they still have a penis and not a vagina, I don’t wish to have sex with them. That is my sexual orientation, and I don’t see why that should cause me to be considered transphobic. I neither fear nor hate trans individuals. I don’t wish to treat them any different from cisgender people. I don’t wish to deny them rights, or determine which bathrooms they have access to.

Hell, for what it’s worth, there are many cisgender women I don’t wish to have sex with for many reasons. Not every woman is someone I would be romantically or sexually attracted to. There are a variety of factors involved in what I find attractive, and I don’t know that I could even list them all, even if I wanted to. Sometimes women who I think I wouldn’t be attracted to, I end up finding I am, while others for whom I have an initial attraction, I find other factors lessening that draw.

Whether or not someone was assigned female at birth is not among the factors that I really even care about. I do want a particular set of genitalia, and some female appearance – though I’ve found myself drawn to some very attractive androgynous looking women at times.

I pointed out to the person I was arguing with that Janet Mock, who is a prominent trans woman and activist says explicitly that she is a heteronormative trans woman, meaning that she is exclusively attracted to men. The woman told me that in that case, Ms. Mock was transphobic. I pretty much ceased arguing at that point, since I felt the person was beyond reason.

Folks, not all trans allies are pansexual. Some of us are basically either heterosexual or homosexual in orientation and that implies a wish for the body parts associated with the gender that the other person identifies as. For a bisexual person, I’m not sure how many would care whether the genitalia matched the gender identification. For some it might, and others it might not.

Regardless, we each have the right to choose romantic or sexual partners based on what attracts us and for many, the genitalia are a part of that. I don’t feel it is transphobic to prefer a particular set of genitalia. As I said, I don’t care whether those are the genitalia the person was born with, if the person otherwise attracts me. I do care which set they have.

Conservationism versus Neo-Conservatism and Libertarianism

I find it hard to understand. One of the first very prominent conservationists was a Republican – Theodore Roosevelt, who established the US Forest Service. Beyond that, the first national park in the United States was established by another Republican – Ulysses S. Grant. In more modern times, Richard Nixon, yet another Republican, established the Environmental Protection Agency, creating it by Executive Order, later confirmed by Congressional action.

In the 1800s, people began to realize that laissez faire economics was destroying the land and water, and started to take action to preserve those things both for the health and welfare of current citizens and for the benefit of future generations. Conservationism was no great partisan issue, it was supported by members of both parties. In many cases, the laws were supported by those whose actions were limited by them.

The limitations on grazing on public lands were begun because before the limitations, overgrazing was widespread. Many ranchers realized that without limits, the public grazing land would be ruined, because it was in everyone’s interest to use as much as they could, and in no one’s interest to limit their own use. Outside control by the federal government allowed reasonable use for reasonable fees while keeping over grazing to a minimum.

Now we seem to have some big business interests which no longer care about anything other than their own enrichment and their current quarterly profits. If lands are despoiled, if air and water are polluted, if entire species are killed off, they have no concern whatsoever. So long as they make their profits, and can insulate themselves from the effects of their actions, they don’t care about the effects of those actions on others.

Those corporate and business interests have now taken over a significant part of the Republican party. They have a philosophical basis in extreme Libertarianism. They want as little governmental control over business actions as possible. Ironically enough, they have allied with the religious right which is all too happy to restrict individual liberty in the name of their religion.

What we seem to have lost in one whole segment of our voting population and business population is a concern for community. They feel that society benefits from the uncontrolled pursuit of individual interest. There is no sense of enlightened self interest, no sense that the interests of the community as a whole must also be recognized and respected. The Republican party has been taken over by corporate greed.  Worse, they used that to control state legislatures and redraw district lines to help them maintain power.

Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, warned of undue influence on government by the corporations. What he warned of and feared has come true, in the worst possible way. They want to privatize government functions in the view that government is inefficient and ineffective in its actions. In some instances, government agencies have indeed become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. We need however to reform those functions, rather than allowing wealthy businessmen to make millions or even billions off privatization.

Resource based companies want widespread sale of government lands – usually at fire sale prices – to private enterprise and for private exploitation, with minimal benefit to the country as a whole. I am reminded of the fall of the Soviet Union, when major Russian business were sold to what became oligarchs who profited greatly, so long as they lined the pockets of the politicians selling off the assets. We are rapidly becoming a kleptocracy – a government ruled by the corrupt, who exploit the ruled.

When will we learn? Will we even learn? Can we extricate ourselves from this cycle of greed and corruption in government? Unfortunately, the problems are not limited to the Republican party. The democrats get financial support from some of the same business and financial interests as the GOP. That’s why none of the Wall Street bankers who ripped off consumers in the lead up to and during the housing crash were never prosecuted. That’s why even when the Democratic party had control, laws forbidding the government from negotiating lower drug prices were allowed to stand. That is why we still have major corporations making billions off government contracts with often minimal oversight.

When our Constitution was written, the US had no corporations which could exert the kind of influence they do today. During the robber baron era, Republican politicians, such as Theodore Roosevelt, led the effort to break up mega corporations and limit their power. Where will our next progressive leader come from? How will she or he get the power to change things to benefit all of us, not just the ultra wealthy?

Apres Trump

I fear there is a reason that more members of the GOP do not openly oppose Trump and his policies. Trump has become a lightning rod, who pushes what are in many cases outrageous policy changes. In doing so he has built a great deal of opposition to his policies and resentment of them. He has the support of hard core right wingers however, and first off, the GOP does not want to anger the core of its base.

Secondly, the opposition to Trump will only increase as he promotes ever more outrageous policies. This opposition will eventually cause the GOP to remove him, which will put Pence in the White House. Pence will truly push the agenda that the GOP wants to move forward with, but after the outrage over Trump, more people will be accepting of Pence and his ultra-conservative policies.

There will still be a core group of people who oppose Pence’s policies, but as the country breathes a sign of relief at Trump’s departure, there will be fewer and smaller protests over the quieter dismantling of civil rights, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, and women’s rights. Trump’s nomination of a hard line conservative to the Supreme Court has raised considerable opposition. In a year, Pence could do the same with far less opposition.

The GOP can tell its core that they gave Trump a chance, but there was too much opposition, while telling moderates they got rid of someone when it was obvious he didn’t have the support of the people. They shore up support both right and center, but need to wait until Trump has even less popularity than he does today.

After that happens, they can quietly begin cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, consumer protections, and business regulations. Too many members of Congress will be willing to move forward with that, in part because some of the most vocal opponents will still be recovering from the outrage and ouster of Trump.

Women's March

Some well off women have moaned about how well off women are marching though they may not be the ones suffering, and though women in other countries may have it far worse.

The woman with enough money and privilege will always be able to get birth control or an abortion. She doesn't have to worry about having higher rates for insurance - she can afford it.

If she's white, she need not worry about being locked up for little cause or killed though unarmed. We can decry the ill treatment of women in other societies. That does not mean we should ignore sexual assault, sexual harassment, misogyny, and unequal wages or access to employment or promotion in this country.

No, many of the privileged women who march may not have to worry so much about many of those things, but there are many other women in this country who do, and women and men can march to push for greater equity for all members of our society, regardless whether they are personally affected.

President Elect Trump

I sincerely wish our president elect was a decent human being. I hear his supporters constantly saying we should give him a chance. This comes after eight years when the right wing never stopped criticizing President Obama. They blocked or attempted to block everything Obama tried to do. They said openly they would oppose everything Obama proposed and do everything in their power to make Obama a one term president. Beyond that were lies like the birther nonsense, and allegations of Obama being a closet Muslim. Even worse were racist insults and comments directed not only at Obama, but at his entire family.  After eight years of that, why should I blithely accept Trump as president with no pushback?

At any hint of a slight, Trump responds with insults and slurs. How can the man and this country survive four years of him tweeting slurs at everyone who disagrees with him? When the press writes critical news stories, he responds by calling it fake news. He has revoked or tried to revoke the press credentials of reporters for papers and networks that question or criticize him. He is even talking about closing the press room in the White House. At his latest press conference, he packed it with his own staffers who cheered his comments and booed criticisms of him. Is this a free press and open dialog?

How hard would it be for a president – any president – even Trump – to say, “I know many of you disagree with me, but let’s find common ground and work together on those things we agree on.” Why does he have to respond with anger and insults at anything which makes fun of him, mocks him, or criticizes him?

His supporters want the country to come together behind him – well he needs to make it clear he stands with ALL citizens of this country, whether they agree with him or not. Instead he calls his critics haters, losers, and liars. I’m sorry, but as it stands, this man has done zero to earn my respect. I will feel free to criticize any policy of his that I disagree with, and criticize the man himself when I feel it warranted.

Liberals Don't Understand Trump Voters

The more I see of Donald Trump, the more contempt I have for him. Forget trying to assuage the legitimate fears of his opponents - his response is to slam them. He is almost the textbook right wing troll - never engage in reasoned discussion - denigrate and insult those who disagree with you.

Some folks say that we liberals don’t understand or sympathize with the concerns of Trump voters. I don’t think that is completely true. Trump voters fall into three groups, the first one is those with serious economic concerns.

I understand they want better paying jobs with more security. To me that comes from the opposite of the GOP agenda - higher minimum wages, more support for education, more affordable health care, more job training, guaranteed jobs, and income support for those out of work. Essentially, they voted against every bit of that. Those things are the keys to Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights.

The second group of Trump voters are those who are comfortable financially and see the economy strictly as a zero sum game. The only way others can get ahead in their view, is if they lose. They have no intention of losing whatever financial security they’ve gained, so their response is calling for lower taxes and cutting “entitlements”. They feel that lazy undeserving people are living off their tax dollars.

Well, the bulk of “entitlements” consist of Social Security and Medicare, which are wholly funded by payroll taxes. Given the cap on taxable benefits, only upper income taxpayers would be hurt by raising the cap. Raising the cap would ensure the liquidity of Social Security and Medicare for another generation.

Beyond that, the bulk of people who are helped by “welfare” programs fall into two groups, those who want to work and those too young, too old, or too disabled to work. There are certainly a few who want to bilk the system, but they are far outnumbered by those who simply want a fair chance to make a decent living. We have too long seen middle class white taxpayers being pitted against lower income people by those who seek only to gain from that conflict.

The third group of Trump voters are those who voted to preserve white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, and straight privilege. There they are quite right – I do not sympathize with those people. I support rights for all people, not just straight white Christian men.