bmagnus

Follow Up on Anti-Abortion Terrorism

From *itch, PhD. And her colleagues.

From Brilliant Jill. Twice.

From Kos. And again. And yet again.

Here’s MahaBarbara.

And from Donklephant.

From Firedoglake.

And Susie.

Here’s the ArchCrone.

Don’t forget JurasicPork.

Stories of lives saved by Tiller start with Donkeylicious.

Summary of right-wing opinions from Incertus (thanks to them for reading this crap so I don’t have to).

At least the AG is taking this seriously.

I am seriously amazed that there are people who think it’s ok to kill somebody — anybody — for what amounts to a philosophical disagreement. To do this in the middle of a religious service adds insult to injury. What’s to stop these people from killing “sluts” to prevent them from someday maybe having abortions? When is the rest of the nation going to stop calling them “pro-life” and start calling them what they are: Anti-Abortion Terrorists.

It is also becoming clear that there was at the least an informal conspiracy at work. Let’s hope the Obama Administration has the guts to use all the invasive anti-terror tools the Bush Administration provided them.

Oh, and as a free point, REAL ID wouldn’t even have slowed this guy down.

In Closing: please congratulate my state on their shiny new domestic partnership law (we are going to have such faaaaaabulous ceremonies in Vegas!); blast from the computing past; rape is still a pandemic in Liberia, with even old women and babies being violently assaulted; some people think the mortgage meltdown is only beginning; and the mystery of the cat. (I know, Iz no mstry, U gives cat cheezburger!)

A Very Successful Terrorist Plot.

ter’-ror-ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Can somebody tell me why, exactly, the murder of a doctor who happens to perform abortions — assassinated in a church, during a service, in front of his family and friends — isn’t terrorism? Anybody?

How dare this terrorist call himself “pro-life.” Murder is fundamentally anti-life. If life is sacred, then even the life of your enemy is sacred.

How dare this terrorist call himself “Christian” (if he in fact does). He desecrated holy ground. He profaned a service of praise and worship to the God he claims to serve. Even if he believed this were already done by allowing his victim to worship, the other men, women, and children in that sanctuary — if it can be called a sanctuary any longer — had the expectation and right to worship in peace.

He committed premeditated murder against someone to stop a medical procedure he doesn’t happen to like (and I might add, he can’t have), and by intimidation prevent other doctors from even considering providing similar services. That’s terrorism.

So-Called-Pro-Life groups need to start policing themselves, or they will be on the list of domestic terror groups. It’s one thing to hold an opinion on any given issue. It’s another thing altogether to force your opinion on others through violence, vandalism, and murder. That’s terrorism.

Let me make one thing clear: Even if you do think abortion is a bad thing, murdering a man in the middle of a church service is not an acceptable form of protest. Seriously.

Trollish comments will be deleted. Threats will be forwarded to law enforcement. Too much crap, and we go to comments closed. Understood?

In Closing, the last month-end roundup. I’ve had fun celebrating 5 years of ShortWoman with you, but next month will mark by 6th blogiversary. Without further ado: Truth in Headlines and Charter Schools; the very first Shorties; fuel efficiency in the mile high club (and prices have been higher since then!); on Random Drug Testing in Schools; and Jared. Oh, and one more little item, from the New York Times, The Fall of the Mall.

How I would love to shut up about health insurance reform

Let me go on the record as saying once and for all that the reason health care costs as much as it does in this country is the health insurance industry. Here’s how:

Because most consumers neither directly pay for care, nor even directly pay the people who do pay for it, any possible market forces are undermined.
Most patients have no control over who their insurance company is, and therefore cannot effectively demand lower premiums or better coverage.
Most insurance companies force consumers to either select from a short list of approved doctors, clinics, and hospitals — or pay much higher out of pocket costs.
Doctors who want to be paid must agree to contracts that will pay them less than fifty cents for every dollar billed (paid up to 90 days later), yet prevent them from giving cash discounts to people who are not paying via insurance reimbursement.
The for profit insurance model guaranties a system where people are paid to not provide care; every dollar of “profit” can be considered “overcharged premiums” or “under-paid bills”.
Even without a profit motive, almost none of the expenses of the insurance company provide any care whatsoever.
Medical facilities must spend money on a “biller” — an employee or contractor who provides no care, but is necessary to fill out the complicated forms required for insurance reimbursement.
Some insurance “cost control” measures actually cost more money in the long run: demanding a cheap test to prove that the “expensive” test your doctor thinks will actually have important results is needed; paying for an expensive hospital bed rather than a relatively inexpensive hospice bed; inadequate hospital stays that increase the likelihood of another hospitalization.

Now, I am not the only person who has noticed that health insurance bureaucrats now fill the bogeyman roll of “faceless government bureaucrats” conservatives use to scare us. Nor am I the only person to notice how quickly the health insurers backed off their handshake agreement with the President to control costs — oh, that might violate anti-trust laws!

We’ve got a broken system now. A system where even people who have insurance are bypassing care because of expense. A system where people are getting married for insurance reasons. And yet the insurance companies and the politicians they have bought keep telling us that no, we don’t want Medicare for All. They keep trying to scare us with horror stories about a small number of Canadians, and ignore the hundreds of people we know having horror stories here. Some people say we can’t afford reform, but the truth is we can’t afford not to reform.

Let’s keep the pressure on.

Need talking points? Here’s 10 of them.

In Closing: Ethanol; how are we supposed to prevent identity theft when the IRS is busy selling our tax info?; Plunge in GM stock value means Tesla Motors is now worth half as much as GM; more evidence that biometrics isn’t security, some medications will remove your fingerprints; Fun With Jesus; California, money, and the death penalty; “So very much like ‘judicial activism’ and its various cognates, when conservatives talk about judges ‘making policy’ or ‘legislating from the bench’ all they really mean is ‘judges ruling in ways we don’t like.'”; Presidential Trivia; and the MTV Movie Awards ought to be interesting, Andy Samberg is hosting.

Memorial Day

More than flowers adorn the graves in Section 60. Visitors of all faiths have picked up the ancient Jewish tradition of leaving a small stone on the headstones to show that a visitor had been to the grave. In most cases these are pebbles found near the grave. But some people have taken to leaving colored glass beads or elaborately painted stones with shamrocks or words like “hero.”

Some mementos leave one to wonder about the story behind them. Like the headstone topped by a tiny bottle of Tabasco hot sauce. Or a set of dog tags with a name that didn’t match the name on the headstone.

There is another topped by a small Lego toy, perhaps left by a child whose father died in a far-off land before they even knew each other. Or the grave adorned with an empty bottle of Bud Light, a rubber duck and a candle.

Nearby an empty Wild Turkey bottle is the lone addition to the grave of a soldier who died in a country where drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden.

The two best Memorial Day items I’ve read come courtesy of an Ambulance Driver and Jurrasic Pork.

In closing: Job search ID theft scam; looks like I accidentally got in front of the “how are faceless health insurance bureaucrats better than government bureaucrats” logic; health care and the employer tax exclusion; oh, let’s keep with this health care theme; and it turns out that last week’s “terror plot” — while a little more plausible than the Fort Dix 6 — was poorly planned, completely FBI supervised, and had its roots in our broken health care system; I’ll take my bourbon in a bourbon flavor, please; “reducing abortions” doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does; vaccinations are a good thing; and the unemployment/foreclosure feedback loop.

The Decline and Fall of the Martini

I am a purist about cocktails, for the most part. As far as I am concerned, a “martini” comes in two flavors: Gin or Vodka. You won’t catch me drinking apple-tinis, choco-tinis, berry-tinis, kalhua-tinis, mocha-tinis, tini-tinis, or any other abomination served in a cocktail glass ending in tini. The plain, simple, unembellished martini was good enough for James Bond (although strictly speaking in the novel it was a Vesper), and it’s good enough for me.

That being said, when exactly did the “cocktail menu” become the “martini menu”? Who decided that “random alcohol or mixer plus vodka equals some kind of martini”? When is the Screwdriver going to be rebranded as the orange-tini? And I hate to ask, will it sell better?

I don’t begrudge anyone their frou-frou cocktail, their “sex on the beach” or “woo woo cocktail” or whatever they want to call it. I’ll just usually order something simpler.

But herein lies the problem. I know exactly what to expect when I order a “Tanqueray Martini, Up, Olives.” Likewise, I know what I’m getting if I order just a “vodka martini with a twist.” If I order a “Makers Mark Manhattan,” I know that in many places I had better specify “up”, or it will come on the rocks, which isn’t bad, just different. Some people look at me twice when I order a Manhattan. Apparently that’s “an old lady drink” — perhaps they are thinking of Winston Churchill’s mother. By the way, a Manhattan can be greatly improved with sweet vermouth and/or a splash of Cointreau.

Where I get into trouble is ordering a “cosmo“. What I am expecting is a drink containing cranberry juice, some sort of citrus juice or liqueur, and vodka (perhaps slightly sweetened, as cranberry is rather tart). What I have been served lately varies from that to pink lemonade with vodka, to some sort of cherry kool-aid thing with vodka (this last was so vile I couldn’t drink it and sent it back in favor of a Tanqueray Martini, above). Apparently, I am lucky to have not been served this vodka-sorbet combination from Rachel Ray. What’s next? Calling “Red Bull and Vodka” a cosmo?

Henceforth, when I get a wild hair for a cosmo, I shall order a “vodka cran” instead, and save myself much grief.

In Closing: why is Jack Welch afraid of the Obama Administration?; “we’ve got m**** f**** questions on this m**** f**** plane,” a clear security risk for blind men to ask what the heck is going on; Cheesecake Factory profits are up (on less, booze, more cheesecake. That’s not the right way to “tighten belts”, America!); better fuel efficiency in the works, and now we can’t complain that it will drive the Big 3 out of business because 2 of them are already effectively there; does Pelosi have a target on her back; health care follow up from Reich; Ezra moved; Wal-Mart sticks a fork in Game Stop, starts buying used games; LEGO USB hubs; and there’s gold (and silver) in them thar hills.

Compromise Usually Means Nobody’s Happy

You’ve all seen this little illustration. In the old days perhaps you had a copy sitting next to the fax machine. There’s a variation that’s “what the kids wanted,” “What the school district approved,” etc..

Unfortunately, this idea now applies to health insurance.

What the majority of Americans want is Medicare for All.

What for profit insurance companies and their well paid executives want is mandatory purchase of coverage by all Americans (if there has to be any change at all).

What many politicians and most business owners want to do is lower costs.

Some other politicians and some insurance companies want is continuation of the status quo.

What almost all politicians are is afraid to be on the “wrong” side.

What some lawmakers are now proposing is a government run health insurance company, with a requirement that everybody buy health insurance and some way to help “lower income” families afford coverage. To me this sounds like the worst of all worlds: mandatory coverage, plus tax credits that won’t help, plus a nice new bureaucracy whose rules will probably be every bit as byzantine as those from for-profit health insurance companies.

Here’s the thing. What most Americans want turns out to be the thing a bunch of economists say would be the best thing. It would certainly be an undeniable good thing for entrepreneurs, the unemployed, those at risk of losing their jobs, and all women.

Why won’t our elected officials stand up to insurance special interests and actually talk about what their constituents want? Why are they more afraid of special interests than they are of us?

In Closing: Since it turns out that a little daydreaming and seeing things that are “cute” does good things for productivity, here’s news on a couple of Japan’s feline stationmasters (other than Tama-san of course); Cheerios is a drug?; financial literacy video games; medical tattoos; and at least ending use of the phrase “war on drugs.”

Update: Many thanks for the link from Crooks and Liars. This is now one of my most popular posts ever. Unfortunately, that means it has been the target of comment spam, and I have had to turn off comments.

Having a Job is Job One

In April, the American economy lost over half a million jobs, and that’s still not quite as bad as expected. The Economic Policy Institute did all the heavy math to show us that we need 7 million new jobs — that’s 7,000,000 — to get back to where we were before the recession began. Don’t forget to look at their charts for job losses and unemployment rising as compared with past recessions.

Things are bad enough that USA Today had to run an item on whether or not multi-level marketing plans were “a good choice for you.” Well here’s a hint folks: when someone would rather sell you their business than their product, you don’t want it. If the product is so good, why on earth would they want more competitors selling it?

In Closing: Worst CEOs Ever; 33rd bank failure of the year (exceeding last year’s total already, and it’s only May); when torture enhanced interrogation becomes murder, you don’t get any “valuable intelligence” from them anymore; why Republicans wanted to curtail the ability of bankruptcy judges to address debtors’ biggest debt; the President demands a bill to crack down on credit card abuses; and Happy Mothers Day.

Announcement

It is my pleasure to inform all ShortWoman readers about the relaunch of Age Against the Machine. The renovated site will feature commentary on nutrition, fitness, anti-aging, and general health. Included will be regular reviews of books, exercise programs, and other products written impartially. Oh, yeah, and I’m one of the writers. Most of the stuff I would have posted in the “Eat, Drink, and Move That Body!” will be over there instead. Come visit us!

In Closing: a lot has been said about health care, health insurance, and reform thereof in the last couple of days; Congressional leaders bowing to credit card companies while forcing the rest of us to kneel and take it; on the reform of No Child Left Behind; Sakura; and “Pull over! Hey Joe, you want a burger?” “Uh sure Barrack, let’s have a burger!” How quickly we forget how much time Mr. Clinton spent at McDonalds.

And So April Ends

In 2004 I talked about Tax Day and Evil.

In 2005 we had the horror — horror! — of Books on a Plane. Ten times as educational as Snakes any day!

For 2006, we have a suddenly relevant item on health insurance. Admittedly, I now think that universal health care is the only true way forward.

April of 2007 was a simply awful month for public slaughter of other human beings. But some weeks before the Virginia Tech incident I posted this item on domestic violence.

And in 2008 I talked about how to insure that any “reform” of the educational system actually worked.

In closing: Is it iced coffee weather?; when biometrics go wrong; auto industry bail-out taking a long drive off a short pier (sorry, the auto industry bailout jokes just drive themselves… ooops, there I go again); swine flu (or anything else) vs homeopathy; torture logic, like a boss; and fusion centers are about violating your rights, not tasty cuisine.

Big

When I have dinner at a nice restaurant, I can reasonably expect that people at neighboring tables will not be blowing cigarette smoke at me. When I buy a ticket on an airplane, I should reasonably expect to have a seat — a whole seat, without somebody else’s flesh crammed against me.

I have some little stack chairs in my kitchen. They’re not fancy, but they do the job and are easily moved around the house. There is no harm done if a black person, or an Hispanic person, or a Catholic sits on these chairs. Nothing bad will happen if an elderly person or a man or a young child sits on them. However, these chairs would probably break if a 400 pound person were to sit on them. That’s not because they are bad people, it’s just that the chair isn’t designed for them.

Differences in access to the health care system notwithstanding, being a different religion, nationality, gender, or having a different marital status does not automatically put someone at risk for heart disease, dementia, high blood pressure, cancer. None of these things is a leading indicator of diabetes risk. Obesity is a risk factor for all of the above. True, race can be a risk factor for heart disease and cardiovascular disease among other conditions, but some researchers feel that other risk factors (including income) are also at play. Weight loss in the overweight and obese reduces the risk of heart disease, osteoarthritis, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, some cancers, incontinence, infertility, and diabetes almost universally. This holds true regardless of whether it is done with “diet and exercise,” or more radical interventions such as gastric bypass surgery.

Yesterday I read two items on civil rights. The first was Sojourner Truth’s brilliant speech on women not being inferior to men, usually known as “And ain’t I a woman?” The other was a Reuters item entitled Obesity becoming U.S. civil rights issue for some.

A civil rights issue? How? I can’t become a man without surgery, I can’t become black, I can’t become Asian. I can learn foreign languages but that will never change my national origin. However, I can control my weight, and I can do it without surgery. I can gain weight; I can lose weight. One is harder than the other I confess, but yet I can.

The only way I can possibly rationalize being overweight or obese as some sort of civil rights issue is if we are going to say that obesity is in fact a handicap, covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even then, ADA says “reasonable” modifications, and that often modifications must be paid for by the disabled person effected. Why do I have the nagging feeling that won’t be acceptable to the “fat acceptance” crowd?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not “just bagging on fat people.” There are two points in this article on which I can agree. First, “promoting health at every size” is a good thing. However, every doctor knows that “healthier at a normal size” is a better thing. I reject the idea that “fat is my normal.” To accept that means you accept that humans are rapidly evolving to be heavier, with weaker hearts, brains, joints, and pancreases. You aren’t going to get Marcus Welby to “tolerate” the fact that these people are more likely to get chronic illnesses — don’t even get Dr. House started (no really, I can’t stand him). Granted, the medical community often has not done a great job helping these people, but the “fat acceptance” crowd doesn’t want them to do a better job. They want medical professionals to tell them it’s ok to be fat.

Second, of course everybody should be able to buy clothes that fit and look good on them! Believe me, I know a few things about the difficulties of buying clothes when you don’t perfectly fit the fashion industry’s ideas about your body. Short people and tall people have understood for years that there would be times they had to order things from catalogs, get things altered, or even have things custom made. Welcome to my world, Big Girls! If the fashion industry thinks that the one in 5 American women who are under 5’2″ are not a viable market, I don’t know what makes them special. Clothes are not a civil rights issue.

Over the years, I have known many overweight or obese people who were smart, hard working, funny, and great to be around. But if they are on a plane next to me, they had better stay on their side of the armrest. And when they visit, they better not break my kitchen chairs.

In Closing: HFCS; B of A’s Judgement Day; the first swine flu death was a tax inspector who probably knocked on 300 doors while ill; huh, Reagan thought torture was a bad thing (an inconvenient truth indeed); oh no, Steve Jobs is too sick to attend a hearing regarding his property; and maybe the bank’s pain should be spread around.