Obstruction

Ostensibly, the duty of government employees (elected, nominated and confirmed, hired, or otherwise) is to, you know, work for the government. Make things happen. Make bad things un-happen. Try to see the bad things coming and plan for and against them, so they aren't so bad. *cough* Katrina *cough*

But internet, I am at best dubious about the job performance of the sort of employee who thinks their organization is inherently corrupt, inept, and incapable. What standard does said employee feel the need to meet? What guilt, or even second-guessing might they feel about carrying out their duties in a way that is corrupt, inept, or incapable? Why should I vote for someone who sees their potential job as wasteful and unnecessary?

When an honestly middle-of-the-road health care bill gets passed through the Senate with tons of ideas adopted from Republican, which eliminates some of the biggest problems screwing over Americans, while reducing the impact on the deficit, gets booed and name-called by a cadre of said anti-government government employees, I can't help but arch the Ozzie eyebrow in response. We've got elimination of rescissions (that's when they take away your health insurance because you've developed a condition that will cost money), pre-existing condition discrimination, reduction of age and sex discrimination, and a magical thing called bundling, wherein a set rate is paid for certain conditions (like diabetes) to incentive good preventative care (like consultation, which insurers will not typically reimburse, although it is more important than many prescriptions and frequently involves education to insure that medications are taken properly). Preventative care! The thing that many people need and don't get, because doctors don't get paid for it and kids get programmed to expect (prescription) drugs to solve problems. That simply must mean socialism.

Because I don't care if we get Obamacare (what does that even mean? Obama's too busy reading off speeches and trying to 'reach across the aisle' to have much of an impact on the legislation itself, that's being hammered out poorly by members of Congress), an individual mandate to buy health care which is required by law to be nonprofit (as they do in some countries in Europe), or what. I'm not picky about how the change happens, the only thing I really am specifically hating is this:





















(Credit to http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?tag=cost for the image. )

This grinds my gears, internet. We're paying almost twice as much per capita for health expenditures, and a good-sized chunk of America isn't even getting anything. Not health care, not a better quality of life, not a longer life- just a giant chunk of expenditures. I don't care what it takes to get us down with the rest of the countries on that graph, but we need to do something.

This is bad for business, both in productivity and in expenses due to ill-managed health care and ill-managed health. This is bad for the economy in general, with 1/3 to 1/2 of all bankruptcies being due to medical bills (depending on who you ask, I'm sure the next batch of figures will be lower due to the number of foreclosures skyrocketing). This is bad for families, this is bad for individuals, and it's bad PR for America. And I don't think much of the people who scream fascism and socialism at the sight of something that might make this mess just a tiny bit easier on the average person.

This Winter

I do not want it, Sam-I-am. I have no patience for this cold, and even less for the snow. Dear internet, we have received more snow this winter than Anchorage, Alaska. It kind of makes me pity Anchorage.

I shall distract myself with thoughts of spring, and the lovely spring garden and spring meals I can expect. Grow, little seedlings, grow!

No True Scotsman

I read something on this tangent months ago and it really struck me, so if you've read something shockingly similar I'm not trying to plagiarize, I just couldn't find it in 5 minutes of the Google. :)

Also, I'm not saying this to sling any accusations at folks who consider themselves true Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians- I think it's a good and valid issue that has been grinding my gears as of late. If anyone would like to argue with thist, I'd love to hear your arguments.

There are a number of stories told to illustrate the concept of the 'No True Scotsman', and I'll copy the shortest I could find (ref. Wikipedia):

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: But my Scottish uncle Scotty McScottscott doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

So when someone who publicly IDs as part of a group (Mr. Hume or Pat Robertson, for two well-publicized Christians) says something that makes Joe and Jill Churchgoer cringe, and moreover when they do something incredibly public that could be interpreted by the casual non-Christian as speaking for the group, it is instinctive to say that those people don't belong to that group. However, looking across the diverse range of people included in Christianity, it's hard to find a solid reason to say why these people don't count. If a Christian is defined as someone who acknowledges and accepts the Christian God/Jesus Christ and that Christ rose from the dead (and mayhap a few more qualifications but this is not my main point, so: Brevity), then so long as someone says they believe in the required beliefs, who am I to disown them? Am I some theological, telepathic mastermind that can say: "Oh, not really. You didn't follow this one rule. No go. You're actually a (insert other thing here) or, even more presumptive, you are nothing at all." I wouldn't say Pat Robertson's problem isn't so much that he doesn't count as a true Christian, but that he acted like a jerk. I don't have the ability to say whether or not he's accepted Christ into his heart, so verifying him is a mite presumptuous and also missing the point.

Outside of the arena of religion, I have heard coworkers and friends make very occasional references to so-called 'feminazis'. When I question them on what that means, or what they think it means, I typically hear something like "All feminists hate men!" or "All feminists think that women should have careers outside the house and not have kids, or have their kids in daycare." What I have said before, and what is still tempting to say, is that 'No true feminist' thinks that. But I haven't met every last feminist on the planet, nor am I qualified to judge who does and doesn't count as a feminist. I can say, here's what I know from what I believe, and my experience. I can say that I have never met anyone who espouses those ideas. Because that's all I can really say. I also have noticed a mighty skeptical arched eyebrow when I casually mention Chi Gung practice or thoughts from the Taoist tradition to my fellow scientific types. As if to say, 'You couldn't possibly do THAT, don't you understand this science business?' and bippity, boppity, boo! It seems like any of the experiences or conclusions I have tentatively drawn from repeated practice have been dismissed, because if I'm doing something that appears to be exclusive it no longer counts.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, agnostics, Pastafarians, feminists, Democrats and Republicans have all committed murder, have all had abortions, have cheated on their spouses, abused family members, cheated on their taxes, stolen, lied, and done any other number of crappy crappy things. We're human beings, and human beings are prone to doing crappy things. Then to make it even more human, we feel crappy about the crappy things we do and we a) try to fix it by repenting, apologizing, saying mea culpa, etc. or b) we try to justify it or c) we dodge and lie to ourselves and everyone else and hope it will go away, which tends to end poorly. Identifying a religion or philosophy or anything else to help us combat our intense error-proneness gives us two things: an ideal and set of idealized behaviors, and a group with which we identify. We glorify people we see as embodying those ideals, and we itch to discount people who fall from them. While I think religion, spirituality, and philosophy can do wonderful things for individuals to improve and accept themselves, it seems when they hit the public scene things get warped into a tribal mindset.

I'd like to think a more balanced and likeable approach when dealing with human beings who have done crappy things is not to say 'you don't count as who you are', which is not my place to judge and will likely only get a defensive response, but to try to address the crap while working within their own identity. This is tricky to impossible, but helps me suppress the temptation to lecture or proselytize or otherwise get hoity toity about someone else's crappy behavior. Because I sometimes engage in crappy behavior, and then I feel crappy about it. I find the temptation to lie to myself and everyone else is MUCH mightier when I have recently crapped upon someone's crappy behavior and dismissed them as a person who screws up. I also find the ability to forgive myself and other people for our collective, catastrophic humanity is mightily boosted by saying, hey. I screwed up. It wasn't because I was out to ruin the world for someone else, it was because (insert human thing here). That was lousy, I will try to make amends and avoid this particular screwup again.

Just my $0.02, folks. I'd like to hear any thoughts you might have!