It's been a long time since I've felt like blogging about anything here - basically life has been good to me for almost a year now, which I know is probably contrary to what most people are experiencing right now. However that's the way it is and hence my tea-times are more often than not bright happy affairs these days.

But there is one thing since America put on its "O" face that is really getting my goat up right now and that is health care reform. It just boggles my mind that here we are with the greatest opportunity since Independence just about to put free into freedom again and really get this nation back to something respectable again, and oh look, seems like we're gonna blow it. There is just no way that opposition to sweeping reform would stand even a cats chance in hell, were it not for the oodles of corporate money sloshing around in Washington and turning everyone's heads to mush and pockets to green.

Anyway it occurred to me today that there is one huge voting group that should be coming out en-mass in favor of radical health care reform and that's the religious right and every pro-lifer there is out there. Why? Well I'll tell you why...

America supposedly has the best health care in the world but the problem is almost no one has access to it. When you look at the average level of care it is, well just that, average. And when you look at what most people get then then it is decidedly below par. This shows up in many, many ways but one of them is our infant mortality rate. Look at any list and Team USA is way below the top, bringing up the rear behind a whole slew of pesky countries with "socialized" medicine. Wikipedia cites two sources (UN and the good old CIA) that put our infant mortality rate at 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births - that's the number that die in the first year - and the New York times reported 2006 CDC figures of 6.8 deaths per 1,000 placing us at 29th in the world. According to that article there are no fewer than 22 countries with rates below 5.0% and many countries below 3.5%. So think about it, if America had one of these "best in the world" (in reality, not in our dreams) health care systems we could easily have 3% fewer deaths per 1,000 infants.

But what does that mean?

Well in 2008 the US recorded 4,247,000 births so our 29th-in-class infant mortality rate will cause about 289,000 infant deaths within the first year. That's a tragic number but we can do better. If our health care system could yield the results of those allegedly awful socialized medical systems the Europeans have and our mortality rate was more like 3.8% (which only puts us in 9th place ahead of France but behind the Czech Republic) then we'd see "only" 161,000 infant deaths. So improving our health care system could save 127,000 babies lives a year.

Isn't that staggering?

Every pro-lifer should be out campaning now. Screw Roe Vs Wade, this is an easy one to win if they put just 10% of the effort into it they do trying to stop abortions. And corporations are soul-less entities that are easy to target, there's no guilt or shame in shooting down a few mega-rich insurance and health-care companies. So what is keeping them?

But wait, there is more...

While it is true that the potential saving in infant lives is far, far fewer than the number of abortions per year, currently around 1.2 million, according the pro-lifer's very own statistics about 21% of all abortions are performed for financial reasons - because they cannot afford to have a baby. So guess what the number one cause of bankruptcy is in this country? Yes, medical bills. Do you think maybe more people could afford to have a baby if they weren't crippled with medical costs, or too afraid of being plunged into debt for the rest of their lives raising one? With average health-care coverage costs in the US of $4,700 per single person just who the heck do you think can afford healthcare even for themselves, let alone more kids. Its no wonder that over 50 million are un-insured now, and that US mortality rate to year 5 is more like 8 per 1,000 (sorry I lost the link).

So if pro-lifers really want to reduce abortion rates perhaps they should focus on making health-care more affordable. If 20% of those abortions didn't happen any more that would be, wow, another 240,000 babies... wow it would be a positive baby boom with an extra 260,000 or so new kids on the block each year. Think of all those souls they could save... and without the burden of health-care costs on their minds they might even grow up to be happy well adjusted souls that are less tempted by crime and drugs. Oh, the evil they could avert if only they would rally behind health-care reform.

But oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. It's "socialized", whatever that means, so it must be bad. Shudder the thought of anyone else telling them how to live their lives. That would be a completely alien concept to them that would be impossible to adopt, if anyone is going to do any healing or bossing around it can only be the big J-C and he wasn't a socialist at all was he.

Or was he... huh, what do you know, seems like he was dishing out free health care and healing all the frickin' time, never collected a dime of insurance premiums. Never denied any treatments, even foot massages were a-okay as I recall...

So, do you get why I'm p*ssed off by the whole thing and the lack of indignation, protestation and action by the whole "moral majority"

Grrrrr. Don't make me drink my tea in the dark again people!

Labels: abortion, birth-rate, healthcare, infant mortality rate, religion

No sooner did I jump on my high horse to bitch about Assembly woman Monique Davis (see previous post) than Keith Olbermann of MSNBC came to the rescue with some righteous retribution - naming her today's "worst person of the world". Would it be too ironic of me to say "Ahmen brother!" ???

Labels: politics, religion

Listen to this sound bite (mp3 audio file) as Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat and member of the Illinois legislature goes off the rails. She just can't help herself from a religious tirade tearing into atheist Rob Sherman who dared to point out that maybe spending $1 million in tax dollars on a Pilgrim Baptist Church might be unconstitutional.

The context is unclear from the sound bite so I've no idea if the argument was valid or not. It sounded like the church may actually no longer be a church any more, and hence perhaps just an historic building - in which case spending money may be just a pure historic preservation issue and I don't know if there is anything against preserving a building that is no longer used as a Church. Maybe they would just keep the exterior and put in a library or a restaurant or convert it to lofts...

Anyway what is more interesting is how Davis just goes completely off the rails spewing such venomous hatred and crap while Sherman keeps his cool with "thank you for sharing your point of view". Note how the chair never makes an attempt to shut down Davis as she screams at him to leave but then tells Sherman he must keep his response on subject. Just who was out of order here? To paraphrase what Austin Dacey likes to say: a religious fundamentalist says "I'm right you're wrong so go to hell" but if there was such a thing as an atheist fundamentalist they'd say "I'm right, you're wrong - can't we just talk about it some more?" That seems to be exactly the attitude Sherman is following but really he never gets a chance.

This illustrates beautifully the modus operandi of the religious fundamentalists - eliminate all competition to your memes by eliminating those who might question you and labeling everything they say a blasphemy and outlawing such speech. Austin Dacey points out that this is now a big problem because the secular world has fallen into the trap of labeling all beliefs - religious, secular, whatever as "private" and hence not only not to be part of government, but also beyond public criticism. To keep church out of state they lost the ability to critique any aspect of religion, or any "private" belief on even the most obvious ethical and moral principles. In fact we are rapidly losing any chance of holding anyone, even government to such principles or even talking about them.

It is my belief - and I am happy to make that a public belief - that Davis couldn't justify any of her beliefs against any objective moral or ethical basis, and that Sherman could probably demolish her rationale blow by blow. That is what is feared most and the easiest way is to literally remove all critical speech from public life because, as Davis so eloquently puts it, it is "dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists". Ms Davis - if atheism, secularism and the rest of our non-god fearing philosophies are just unfounded rubbish what have you to fear from a little spirited (no pun intended) debate? Never mind that the proposed expenditure that you are defending might actually be illegal, and that your proposed banning of someone from government for being an atheist is also illegal.

See RichardDawkins.net for more information about Davis' meltdown.

Labels: politics, religion

Great news - we are not alone! No, it isn't a message from the stars decoded by SETI, or a monolith dug up on the moon - just the latest U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum. Their massive survey has concluded that a full 16.1% of adult Americans are either atheists, agnostic or believe "nothing in particular". That's a huge result and well inline with other recent surveys that conclude a very significant percentage of American's could care less about religion. And that is without any consideration of those who are quick to label themselves as one thing or another if only out of habit or just to fit in, but actually know, practice or care less about that particular religion. I mean we all know of have heard of people who profess to some religion or other just for "tradition" or because their parents raised them that way or just because its a gamble that has no downside after death.

But let me tell you, 16% of adult Americans is a huge number of people and most likely they are all plenty sick and tired of hearing about religion and seeing it dictate the misdirection of our countries forces, resources and future at the expense of humanity as a whole. I just hope some people in Washington finally take note and decide that maybe, just maybe, it is time they stopped pandering to the some elite band of Christians or other that excepting Catholics, all number fewer than the "none of the above" crowd. I mean just look at all the myriad categories of Evangelicals and Protestants, let alone the rest, can anyone say "Factions" or "Splinter cells"??? Why would anyone ever believe that given their own way and opportunity at the helm each one of these factions would denounce all others as the wrong kind of religion and seek to stamp out and destroy them while at the same time as they themselves go off and faction even more as they race backwards to Old Testament values (think stoning, slavery and stuff that make even hardcore Sharia laws look civilized).

Labels: religion

Hopefully that title got your attention. I'll be the first to admit I'm an Obama supporter - I wish somehow Edwards had got the nomination but given the current field my choice is Obama. I actually think it is high time this country had a female President, a break in the long history of old white men running the world is clearly long overdue. But I just don't think Hillary is the woman for the job, I have a strong feeling she would be a bad president for future female candidates. So I just hope I live long enough to see some future woman candidate get the support of the nation, become President and do a great job.

Oh well, want I really wanted to blog about was Obama and this whole "scandal" about him being photographed in Muslim clothing. I was getting somewhat irritated that Obama in denying he was a Muslim never took the opportunity to denounce the idea that being a Muslim is a problem, and even being a Muslim President is a problem. But then I came across a column by Naomi Klein from The Nation that said exactly the same thing and I felt vindicated, I'm not the only person thinking Obama is copping out and treading a dangerous path towards sucking up to "special interests". Sure he's probably thinking this is a really bad time to be pissing off all those Christians and making Hillary happy, but face it - is there ever a good time to be controversial in American politics? Isn't it just a huge game of who can suck up to the most demographics the most, and piss off the fewest demographics the least? Never mind about "doing the right thing" any more...

Lets not forget that at one time the country was apparently having a hard time contemplating even a Catholic President (Kennedy), and that back then a black President would have been unthinkable. And not too much before that a woman president would also be unthinkable - long after they were actually allowed to vote. If someone were to fault Obama for being black would he not run to the bully pulpit to level their preposterous racist hate speech? And wouldn't Hillary or any right thinking Democrat do the same thing?

So why do a turnaround and tacitly accept vilification of Muslims or the notion that a Muslim might ever been President of this country? Surely it is only the severe erosion of the church and state separation by out current President that would ever make the religion of the President an issue - ever. Period. When religion, racism, sexism, hatred, bribes, corruption, money are all kept out of government then these things are just not a problem - any honest hardworking person is a potential candidate who can be weighed entirely on valid merits and not bogus ones dreamed up by FUD mongerers with nothing better to do than spend their lives pandering to their own favorite special interest - themselves.

So come on Obama, this is your chance to label racial, religious and other intolerance exactly that - intolerable! Tell those bigots that if they want to label religion a problem then they are part of the problem that is bringing this country down. You either accept all religions or you have to throw out all religions - even (and especially) in government. Otherwise one day we'll have Christians arguing about which particular brand of Christianity is the right one for a President (which arguably what they are doing already hence no President Romney)

If Obama can speak out about religious intolerance towards Muslims then where's he going to stand when the come for the blacks, the gays, and the atheists?

Labels: politics, religion