Economy? What Economy?

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at 8.2% this past quarter -- the best rate in twenty years. The consumer confidence index surged to 91.7. Unemployment continues to fall, now to 6%, the manufacturing activity index has been soaring, and all -- literally, all other leading economic indicators have been rebounding and showing continuous growth in the past year.

Better yet, at least as far as Bush is concerned, economists are able to draw straight lines from Bush's economic recovery packages and tax cuts to the incredible turnaround.

So, will any of the President's opponents who claimed the economy had been "Bushwhacked" like to change their positions now? Of course not. In fact, last night's Democratic candidate debate illustrated quite clearly what the anti-Bush battalion will do -- stop talking about the economy completely. That's right, after months and months of blaming Bush for the economic slowdown (which could not have been caused by Bush anyway, since none of his policies had yet taken effect), now that there is demonstrative, unwavering, and consistent evidence month after month that the economy is rebounding in record fashion (after Bush's initiatives had taken effect), no one is saying a word. Not in the debates, not on the campaign trail, no longer, nowhere, no one. They are, quite simply, acting as if the economy doesn't exist, pretending the turnaround isn't happening, and secretly (or even outwardly) praying that it's all just a temporary bubble, that the economy will dutifully collapse in time for the election, so they can have their precious voter-seducing issue back.

Now that's leadership.

 It's Okay to Want More -- Just Not Today

TODAY:

Let us be thankful for all that we have, all that we share, all that we earn, all that we love.

Let us be thankful that we live in a nation where dreams become goals and goals become achievements.

Let us be thankful for the opportunity to grow too fat, too old, too spoiled; where we can work too hard, study too long, read too much, think too deeply, dance all night and sleep all day; where we can be rich or poor, alone or together, aware or in denial; where we can strive to be better or pretend to be someone we’re not; where we can be ourselves -- for fun or for serious -- always our choice.

And let us be most thankful that we can pray to a higher power by any name and from any house, with free hearts and free minds.

Thank you, God, for these and all our American Blessings,

Amen

 Embarrassingly Bourgeois

I couldn’t remember what "bourgeois" meant.

So I had to look it up.

Egads!

No wonder I couldn’t remember. I blocked it out of my mind.

I am the definition of bourgeois. I am what I demonstrated so hard against, and I became it anyway.

I have gone from small town beatnik to flower girl to hippie to Democrat to Mom to politician to Republican to Bourgeois. And like all good members of the bourgeois working class --proud of it. I have been thinking that everyone should work hard (like I do) and spend money buying things (like I do) because it keeps America going. I am the Social Middle Class. I strive to keep things as they are -- nay, I fight to keep things as they are. People working, people making things in exchange for money so they can buy things other people make. And with the help of ample resources for industry and collective bargaining for workers to earn enough for necessities as well as some indulgences, we, the bourgeois working class, have created a mighty nation.

But a mighty nation of what? Buyers and sellers?

My sister said we are gatherers, so I guess my sister and I shop to gather. Perhaps it is as ingrained in our instinct as overeating in the fall to fend off the cold and hunger of the long Germanic winters. If I feel antsy, depressed, energetic, bored -- I shop. I used to hate shopping. Now I need it. What is that about? Is some instinct telling me a cold and hungry winter is coming? Do I really need more books, cute blouses & t-tops, pretty cups, coordinating bath linens, and that all-in-one squirt and brush toilet cleaner? Obviously I do, for I bought them all.

And, I am looking forward to Christmas. Not to celebrate the birth of Christ. Not really. I am looking forward to more shopping. I can shop for Christmas Dinner, shop for the adopt-a-family at work, shop for presents for friends and loved ones, and shop for myself as a reward for doing all this shopping. I am keeping America strong by keeping the economy strong. Capitalism lives. Capitalism has surpassed the other social experiments. It thrives, because I earn and spend. And so does my sister. Are we not better than any other nation?

Look at the nation that chose a family of blue blood to rule them.
Look at the nation that chose a superior race to rule them.
Look at the nation that chose a religious leader to rule them.
Look at the nation that chose a sense of community to rule them.
Look at the nation that chose the most powerful and fearsome to rule them.
Look at the nation that chose guardians of commerce to rule them.

Each nation has been burdened with a curse. Each nation suffers the from that most attractive duo of tricksters: Power and Greed.

Ours may not be the most idealistic of nations in the greater scheme of things, but today, in the beginnings of the 21st century, it is the healthiest, and the safest. No matter how hard I try, no matter my misgivings, I cannot think of a better-ruled nation. How embarrassing!

Bourgeois rules.

 Abort, Retry, Ignore?

There's something about the always-contentious abortion debate that lends itself to battles over terminology. The recent Laci Peterson tragedy was a good illustration of this, as news outlets waffled between the terms "fetus" (which sounded too callous under the circumstances) and "unborn child" (which sounded too "pro-life" by journalistic standards). The Partial-Birth Abortion ban produced similar verbal battles, with most news sources feeling the need to add the qualifier "so-called," which made sense during the initial debate but now seems bizarrely left-slanted and unnecessary with "Partial Birth" being a clearly defined legal term, regardless of whether it's the technical medical one.

The most common battle is with regards to what to call people with a certain held belief. Although the public generally seems settled on the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", the mainstream press refuses to use the latter term, insisting on "anti-abortion" or, more frequently as of late, "opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose," which is troubling both for its obvious editorializing, and the fact that it's a bit of a stretch to read such a right into the constitution, regardless of your feelings on the matter. On every other issue, simple "pro" and "anti" are uncontroversial descriptors, such as pro-affirmative-action vs. anti-affirmative-action, pro-gun-control vs. anti-gun-control, pro-capital-punishment vs. anti-capital-punishment, etc. And yet, although "anti-abortion" is seen frequently, "pro-abortion" is never, ever used (outside of the literature of right-to-life organizations). This inconsistency isn't necessarily as slanted as it initially appears, since unlike other issues, few abortion supporters would describe their position as "pro-abortion," nor could their beliefs necessarily be construed as such, for the same reason that all who believe cigarettes should remain legal are not necessarily "pro-cigarette". Abortion, at the risk of stating the obvious, is more complicated.

For example: I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-choice" because she believes the procedure should be legal for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, despite the fact the most pro-life individuals, such as President Bush, also believe such exceptions should be allowed. Similarly, I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-life" because she would never herself have one, but believes the procedure should be legal for others who might choose to. Therefore, confusingly, this "pro-choice" friend would be called "pro-life" by most, and the "pro-life" friend would be called "pro-choice" by most. This also explains why there's such inconsistency in polling data on this issue, for when you simply ask "are you pro-life or pro-choice," polls show a national pro-choice majority, but when you ask specific questions on circumstances and procedures, such as Gallup does, polls show a pro-life majority.

The complexities of the abortion debate therefore do not allow for easy black-and-white divisions, not only because people disagree on the terminology, but also because many standard terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are meaningless in a debate context, since those who disagree with one or the other are quite obviously not "anti-life" or "anti-choice." Therefore, rather than using politically crafted buzzwords, I've attempted to fairly identify the nine main possible positions on abortion below, based on the beliefs themselves. I've done my best to clear these with friends among the different positions, to assure I'm not allowing any of my own bias or feelings to seep through, within reason. (As with all such lists, there may be some overlap across categories.)

1) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances, and Anyone Who Would Perform Them Deserves to Die. Obviously the most extreme of the anti-abortion positions, and only a tiny minority of "pro-life" individuals (though they get vastly disproportional press, likely due to the paper-selling irony of their argument.) Those in this group point out the moral similarities of assassinating Nazi officials during and after the Holocaust, for they're convinced that abortion is a second holocaust against young children, and just as inexcusably evil.

2) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances. This position is traditionally called a "zero-exception pro-lifer," illustrating a wish to ban the procedure even in cases where the mother's life is endangered. (My first long-term girlfriend fell into this category, despite being a liberal Clinton-voting Journalism major.) The opposition to the procedure may be religious in nature, or based on a moral belief that the life of the unborn outweighs that of its carrier, for the same reason that the life of a young child is often more valued than a grandparent. (Obviously, from this category down, violence against individuals who disagree is passionately opposed.)

3) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except to Save the Life of the Mother. Or, a "one-exception pro-lifer." A person in this category believes the unborn child is equal (not superior) to the mother, and therefore in issues where one or both may be in danger, the decision should be left up to doctors or family, as in the case of, for example, deciding which conjoined twin should die to save the other.

4) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except in Cases of Rape, Incest, or to Save the Life of the Mother. This "three-exception pro-lifer" position is certainly the most common among pro-life politicians, and likely stems from the pre-1973 laws in most states which forbade abortions in all but those circumstances. Those in this category believe women should not be required to continue a pregnancy to term if they could have had no control over the conception, whereas pro-lifers in the first three categories argue that a child should not be "punished for the crimes of its father," for no one would argue that a child of a rapist is any less an individual regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception.

5) Abortion Should Be Legal, Though I Personally Disagree With its Morality. Arguably the most common position in this country, and the one that is most difficult to categorize as either "pro-life" or "pro-choice." (President Bush is in this category, for example, with regards to his stated legislative desires, though his heart is likely in category #4 above.) Because there are so many with this belief, especially women who consider themselves "pro-choice" but would never have an abortion themselves, it is unfortunate that they get lumped with one "side" or the other, often with those with whom they disagree and would disavow.

6) Abortion Should Be Legal, but With Restrictions. Another common category, this explains why supposedly "pro-life" legislation such as parental notification laws, 24-hour waiting periods, and the recent Partial Birth Abortion ban have such widespread support outside of the typical "pro-life" voter. The belief here is that abortion should generally be legal, and is not necessarily immoral, but that doesn't mean unrestricted "abortion on demand" up to the cutting of the umbilical cord is in the nation's best interests.

7) Abortion Should be Legal Without Restrictions. Most national abortion rights organizations fall into this category, including the stated positions of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). They interpret any restrictions on a woman's choice as a "slippery slope," but on balance do not believe abortion should be encouraged or discouraged.

8) Abortion Should be Legal, and Encouraged in Some Circumstances. Some leaders and public speakers from the above-mentioned organizations fall into this category, as well as many political activists and active-minded citizens. There is a definite distinction between one who believes abortion should always be a woman's individual choice, and one who believes certain women (people in poverty, unwed teenagers, etc.) should be encouraged (though not forced) to consider the option more than others. The belief here is that abortion is not only a woman's choice, but can also serve a greater public good. In general, those who use arguments of "overpopulation" in abortion talks also fall into this category.

9) Abortion Should be Legal, and Forced in Some Circumstances. In which circumstances an abortion should be forced, of course, makes a lot of room for debate in this category. The Chinese government regularly exercises its right to force abortions to combat overpopulation concerns. In this country, most states (including Michigan) allow a mother to force an under-18 offspring to have an abortion (just like any other surgery). The distinction between this viewpoint and the preceding category is that the belief that abortion can serve a greater good can outweigh the "right to choose" in certain situations.

Of this wide array of positions, only the first three categories could really be described as "anti-abortion" and only the last two could be described as "pro-abortion." The rest, which make up the vast majority of the nation, combine elements of both the desire to protect and honor human life with the practical concerns of a choice-based free society. While it's tempting to lump individuals into two groups of belief patterns (or two political parties), it often trivializes and clouds important issues. It would be equivalent to forcing all people into stating whether drugs should be "legal" or "illegal" without allowing them to specify which drugs (alcohol? Viagra? crack?) or under which circumstances. And it doesn't help matters when the leaders of both "movements" are often on the extreme sides of the debate, and don't even represent the majority of their supporters, much less the nation.

We need an open and honest national discussion on this, not screaming talking heads, fanatical "slippery slope" conspiracists, or five-foot-high color posters of aborted fetuses. This is a polarizing issue, perhaps more so than even the war in Iraq, but there is common ground among the majority which we can all work towards. Reasonable people on all sides need to realize that those on some "other side" are not evil. There are brilliant, educated, caring, and compassionate people across the spectrum, and if there is a "right" position, no one will be won over to it by badgering or insinuations of immorality or idiocy.

As with any emotional argument, we will likely never all agree (at least, not in our lifetime), and our goal should be understanding and compromise in the meantime. But acknowledging that there are more than simply two points of view is an excellent start.

Note: I have excised a line in this article regarding Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's support of forced abortions for certain ethnic/minority groups. Although Sanger was a eugenicist and advocated sterilization for members of "undesireable" races or the "feebleminded," many claims of supporting "forced abortion" are taken out of context and hard to find outside of pro-life websites, and therefore make it inappropriate to include her in position #9 without a bit more research. Thank you to the ludicrosity.com viewers who corrected me on this!

 The Most Dangerous Drug Dealers

Went to the doctor’s office the other day; unfortunately the staff was sicker than I. They had just finished one of the frequently catered luncheons that pharmaceutical companies put on in doctors’ lunchrooms, to bribe, oops, I mean to persuade, oops, I mean to inform doctors so they will prescribe overstocked, oops, I mean new (whatever) drugs that are being pushed that week. It was unfortunate, because many of the office staff are getting older and the sauerkraut and kielbasa were just too rich for the middle of a busy work day.

I think this scandalous behavior of bribing doctors began in the 50's with Metracal, the first diet shake. Doctors won trips to Hawaii in exchange for recommending Metracal to women who wanted to be slimmer. This was about the same time the radio music industry was zapped for accepting bribes to play certain would-be “hit” songs. Back then, disc jockeys made a lot of money (payola) for playing rock and roll songs pushed by the record companies. DJ’s like Alan Freed turned rock & roll into a big business. But when the rules changed, the DJ’s took the brunt of the penalties and the artists and producers were still raking in the profits.

So why is nothing ever said about the pharmaceutical companies and their unethical practices? Just look up and down any well-traveled street. What do you see? Drugstores. A drugstore on every corner. There are 199 drugstores in my local phone book! (And surprisingly, only 133 party stores, which is what we call convenience/liquor stores here in Michigan.) In most cities, everyone now has (at least) one drugstore within walking distance. It is big money. It is very very big money. Dangerously big money.

How do prescription drug companies make so much money? Just ask your greeter at Meijer Grocers or Home Depot Building Supply or even Burger King. Those old people that should be enjoying their final years have to work to pay their prescription bills. Many older people pay $600-$1200 or more every month (every month!) for lifesaving drugs. Do you really think the Great Grandma at Walmart is standing all day on those old legs of hers ‘cause she just loves to say “hi” to you? And I thought the story of a little girl selling matches in the snow was heart wrenching.

But now we see that the excessively high profits of pharmaceutical companies aren’t enough to satisfy the corporate greed of this great nation. So they advertise in magazines and on radio & TV right between ads for Depends and frozen pizzas. They can’t convince enough doctors to prescribe the exorbitantly overpriced pills, so they take their sales pitch directly to the public. They have convinced us to demand our doctors prescribe high-cost name brands (‘cause we’re worth it) that we know nothing about! Just think of the billions of dollars spent to trick us into thinking we know more from a 30-second commercial then our doctors who went through years of medical school. Too often, doctors are losing their authority to treat patients in the best interests of the patients by the insurance industry that already dictates what procedures can be used based on costs. Now we get pharmaceutical companies brainwashing consumers into thinking they need more drugs. And if the patients don’t need any valid medical-use drugs, create a new need–that is the American way. Sex drugs, happy pills, and kiddy tranqs just so we can “Be Me Again.” (“Me again” was one stoned-out honey in the ‘60s, is that what they want “me” to be?)

Luckily, some people can get over to Canada. For some miraculous reason, the same drugs from the same pharmaceutical companies cost a lot less across the border where prices and profits are controlled! An American can take their doctor’s prescription to a clinic across the river, be seen and re-evaluated by a Canadian doctor, have a newly written Canadian prescription filled at a Canadian pharmacy for the drastically reduced Canadian price, and then, even have the remainder monthly prescriptions mailed back to the American’s home!

The pharmaceutical companies don’t like that much. They are threatening drug shortages to Canada. They are threatening to stop drug research. Research for what? More effective Viagra, better wrinkle reducing creams, and longer lasting pills to make children stop running around being curious about life?

Pharmaceutical corporations think scientists and doctors research and invent drugs so the CEO’s can make big profits. I think they work on the big-profit items in exchange for working with the high tech equipment owned by the large firms. I think scientists and doctors are, and always have been, scientists and doctors. There will always be scientists discovering new and better ways. Their threats are shallow.

Maybe it is time for us to refuse to take any prescription medication that has been advertised.