Weblog
Tuesday, 03 November 2009
-
My Thoughts on Abstinence and Comprehensivfe Sex Ed
My Thoughts on Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex Ed.
I’ve been observing some lively and at times, heat discussion going on about abstinence and comprehensive sex education. People on both sides have made some good points as well as some rather overheated rhetoric. Knowledge is power, but I would like to point out that;.
Advice and information are of no use unless they produce positive action on the part of their recipients.
For example, for decades people have been informed about the dangers of tobacco use and its ties to lung disease, cancer, and the harmful effect it has on the unborn. There are laws regulating its advertisement, its use and its sale. Tobacco products even carry warnings on their packaging. Yet thousands of people will start and continue smoking in spite of knowing that it can damage their health or even lead to their death. Abstinence sex ed teaches that you wait until marriage before having sex and that you stay monogamous afterwards. Comprehensive sex education echoes this in many programs but also gives you information about how to have safer sex and reduce your chances having an unwanted pregnancy and acquiring an STD. Both offer good, practical advice. Knowledge may be power but unless it’s applied, by its recipient, it’s worthless. Practicing abstinence is a 100% guarantee that you won’t have an unwanted pregnancy to deal with. The rub is that you have to stick with it 100% of the time and that includes, oral and anal as well if you want to keep STD free. The same applies with comprehensive sex ed advice. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal creams and foams, and birth control pills can reduce the odds significantly of pregnancy and, in most cases, STDs as well but only if practiced 100% of the time. You can’t disregard them because you want to be spontaneous, or because they’re too much of a hassle or thinking that one time without it won’t be a problem. The real irony is that many people who say they know that abstinence is the best way to go or that they understand the information that has been given to they about birth control and STDs, will still have unprotected sex. The message is received but that’s not enough to influence behavior.
Adolescence is a tough time for anyone. Figuring out who you are and where you fit in, as well as having sex or not, is sometimes pretty rough. Parents and other adults can help best by providing guidance and support as well as boundaries to work within. I think the biggest responsibility any parent has is to listen to their children’s questions and provide answers to them from day one. This helps to build trust between the two. Then when the teen years come, you know that your parents are there to help you with the big questions. If nothing else, they can give you some insights that you might not have thought of. Besides, it’s nice to know that the person watching your back does care that you do things right, and not because it reflects well on them, but because they want you to go through life with as little misery as possible. That’s how it worked with me and my parents and how I hope it works out with my kids and me. Personally, I have to throw my lot in with the idea of abstinence until marriage because it seems like the best way to help my kids grow up happy and healthy. (Ok, lower the flamethrowers and hear me out while I get my asbestos sweats on.) Does this mean that I’ll never talk to them about safer sex? No, but it also means that I will tell them that no safer sex method is 100%, that actions have consequences, and that if they don’t want to take the responsibility for their choices, it would be better to make a different choice. Most of all, I going to tell them that if they mess up, I will still love them and will help if they want me too.
(Comments, Pro or Con, are welcomed as long as you have a point other than having a primal scream session. Save any insults or name calling for your own sandbox.)
Monday, 26 October 2009
-
Defense, Pork, and Hate Crimes
Defense, Pork, and Hate Crimes
As of October 22, the 2010 Defense Authorization bill cleared the Senate and is on its way to President Obama. The purpose of the bill is to authorize funds for the military for the next year but there’s a lot more than than funding for the armed forces included in the bill.
The Earmarks
It appears that no bill authorizing funds can make its way through Congress without having earmarks for pet projects being added to it and this bill is no exception. To date, there are 778 ear marks which divert a total of $2.6 billion from the defense budget. According to the Washington Times, these earmarks include:
$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans
$20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts
$20 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii
$25 million inserted for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network
The Washington Times also reports that;
“In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon's budget proposal”
This is $6.8 billion of funding that appears to be spent only to provide the members of Congress with proof that they’re bringing home part of the federal pie to their districts and thus deserve to be re-elected.
How is this pork going to be paid for? According to Winslow Wheeler, a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, most of the money for the earmarks will be coming from the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the military. These are the accounts that pay for the food, fuel, vehicles, weapons, and training service men and woman receive and the repair and maintenance of their equipment. When asked about the effect this would have on troop readiness, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye stated;
"The operation and maintenance title is fully funded. There is no shortage. ... The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available."
However, the Mr. Wheeler points out the O&M accounts have been tapped by Congress to pay for pork since 2002 and the results have been a marked decrease in combat readiness for troops Citing figures from the Pentagon, Mr. Wheeler wrote ;
"Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War. Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years."
The Hate crimes Bill
In addition to earmarks, Congress has seen fit to attach a hate crimes bill which extends currant hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation to the defense funding bill. I might just be dense, but could someone tell me what the two bills have in common that would justify merging the two? The only reason that I see is that the Hate Crimes bill does not have the support to pass on its own, so it was piggybacked on a bill that Congress has to pass much in the same way that earmarks are slapped on. IMHO, any bill that can’t stand on its own merits is probably not worth supporting. Either modify it or scrap it as a bad idea. Hate crime laws in any form don’t make that much sense to me. If the punishment for a crime is the same, then it doesn’t matter if the motivation for the crime is based on the gender, religion, race or sexual orientation of the victim. If there is unequal punishment for crimes committed against a particular group, race, or gender, then changing the law so that equal protection is established would be the correct thing to do. To my knowledge, there is no inequality involved in punishing assaults against GLBT citizens and the straight population.
The President’s Dilemma
On August 17, President Obama made a promise to American veterans. He said;
“Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can’t spend to care for our troops, or protect America or prepare for the future. If a project doesn’t support our troops, if it does not make America safer, we will not fund it. If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it.”
If the President keeps his word and vetoes the Defense Authorization Bill, he will risk upsetting his support from the GLBT community because he’ll kill the Hate Crimes bill along with it. If he signs the bill, he will be going back on his word to cut wasteful spending in the defense budget. Personally, I believe that the President will count his promise to the vets as a just playing to the crowd speech, shrug his shoulders and sign the bill since the GLBT community is getting impatient for him to act on promises that he made during the campaign. But, hey, the only thing that is certain is that things are uncertain.
Monday, 19 October 2009
-
The Night of the Fox Festival
Tne Night of the Fox Festival
Fall means the beginning of the rice harvest here in Niigata. By mid-October, most of the fields are harvested and a number of festivals are held at the local shines to celebrate. One of the most popular is the Kitsune no Yo Matsuri.(Night of the Fox Festival) in Takayanagi. After church, we loaded up the van and took the 20 minute drive to the village
This is an Inari shrine. Inari is a cereral spirit so the festival is held here as a way of saying thanks for a good rice harvest.
A number of traditional art groups were here to show off their talents. We missed the this Lion dancer's act but we did get to see people leting him bite them on the head. This is suppose to be for good luck
This group of junior high students are a Taiko group and they did an original drum number about the 4 seasons. They were good.
Their sensei getting into the spirit of the act.
This is a small sample of this group's erformance.
While the next group was seting up, I took time to wander around and check out some of the booths that were selling food and drinks. I met these two oba-chan tachi (little old ladies) who were sellin onigiri (rice balls) and hoozuki (Chinese lanteren plant fruit). They were abit surprised at seeing a foreigner out in the sticks but they warmed up after we talked alittle.

After I bought some onigiri, they gave me some hoozuki as a gift. Hoozuki has a small berry that has a sweet and sour taste to it with just a bit of bitterness to it. This was my first chance to try it and most likely, not my last.
One of the local TV station's had a crew there to cover the event. The young lady is Ozawa Makoto. She was a member of a pop band called Morning Musume but now she's a reportor.
Alot of the performers and the booth people were wearing fox masks around the shrine. This is because the fox is considered to be the messager for Inari as well as his helper in making the rice plants grow.
Looks like this cutie is getting a bit on the tired side.
The next group was an adult taiko group. They came out in the masks of various demons, old men and foxes.
The festival's main event was the making and preparing of what has to be the biggest piece of fried tofu in the world. Japanese believe that foxes love fried tofu and so they honor them by preparing a piece that is about 6 ft long by 3 feet wide. First, tofu is put into a mold and shaped.
Then it's pressed to remove the water and thin it out, fliped and pressed again
Then, it's lowered into a vat of oil and deep fried for an hour.
The result is a crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside slab of tofu. The tofu is then taken out, drained, blotted, cut up and parceled out to the audiance for their gastranomic enjoyment.
There were other parts to the festival, but with night coming on and a load of tired kids and adults, we headed first to a hot spring for an early bath, and then back to the homestead. If any of you Xangans make your way to this side of the pond in the fall of the year, look us up and we can hit the festival togather. Ja, neh.
Saturday, 26 September 2009
-
A Rebuttal to Agnophile
A Rebuttal to Agnophile
I received some interesting comments on my Thoughts about the President’s Speech blog. One Xangan, agnophile, posted a rather long comment and I felt that it would be better for me to write a blog in response rather than replying to him in the comment section. So let’s have at it.
The Economy has been pulled back from the brink .
Agnophille wrote:.
Yes, we are in a bad recession. In a few short months we went from losing almost a million jobs a month to losing about 200k and dropping. I call that pulling back from the brink, meaning the brink of another great depression.
"
So, because fewer jobs are being lost, the economy has been pulled back from the brink of disaster? That’s like saying because a gunshot wound patient is losing only half a pint of blood an hour instead of the 2 pints an hour he was losing before, he is out of danger and on the road to recovery. The San Angelo Standard Times stated that “…in a healthy economy, employers need to add a net total of around 125,000 jobs a month just to keep unemployment stable.” That is a +125K jobs/ month before we can see some stability with unemployment rates. Until that happens for at least a few months, we are still in the woods and on the road for higher unemployment. I’ll stick with my original take that the President is being overly optimistic about the present economic situation.
Abortion Funding
Agnophile wrote:
Not one single ammendment has passed on HR 3200. Ammendments have passed in committees, that does not effect the legislation. It effects the proposals that those committees make, none of which have passed. The bill in it's current form does not allow your money to fund someone else's abortion.
True, no amendments have been passed on HR 3200. But tell me, why are the committees adding amendments that do allow for abortion coverage in the public health plan and subsidize plans that cover abortion while killing amendments that would explicitly exclude it if the bill is not going to allow tax money to pay for abortions? It makes little sense to add something on to a bill if you know you will need to remove it later. The first rule of legal documents is that if it’s not written down, it does not exist. Unless abortion funding is explicitly prohibited, it will be assumed to be covered and I would expect a court challenge will occur to mandate that it be allowed. This occurred with Medicaid and history has a way of repeating itself.
Enrollment and penalties
I wrote:
The President again appears to be unfamiliar with the Healthcare Bill that is currently in Congress. Sec.312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 specifies that employers MUST enroll their employees into the public health plan or other government improved plan.
Agnophile replied:
Yes. And it defines "government approved plan" as ANY pre-existing policy, any policy that meets the minimum federal requirements. Meaning you can keep exactly the policy you have now and it's illegal for your insurance company to change the terms of your policy or single you out for premium increases because you're in an at-risk group.
Even the Huffington Post points out that the plan can’t guarantee that you will not have to change your policy. If your plan doesn’t meet the government’s standards, your employer will have to change to the public health plan, buy a policy that does conform to the government regulations, or pay a tax. The Lewin Group estimates that 88.1million people would be shifted out of their current employer based plan and put into a government approved one. In addition, 83.4 million privately insured individuals would shift out of private insurance into the public health plan.. Doesn’t sound like you get to keep your current plan to me.
Penalties for not using the public option.
I wrote:
Face being taxed up to 8% of their payroll. Self insured individuals making more than $19,000 will have to switch or pay a 2.5% tax.
Agnophile responded with:
No. It says that your company can be forced to pay a tax between 2 and 8% if they offer no heath insurance whatsoever or a 2.5% tax if they offer health insurance that doesn't comply with the minimum requirements set out in this bill and that 95% of businesses (those that make under a quarter of a million dollars profit) will be exempt from any tax. It says nothing about individual taxes for self-employed people that make 19,000 a year, you're literally just making shit up.Since this part of the health bill is talking about the Employer’s responsibility under the public option, I would be inclined to think that the penalties are leveled at employers that fail to enroll their employees in either the public health plan or other government approved plan. The tax is dependent on the business’ gross payroll and ranges from 0-8%. I find no tax of 2.5% being listed if a business offers sub-standard health insurance and would ask that agnophile kindly state chapter and verse as to where this elusive detail is found. Now as for the individual tax of 2.5% for not having the government minimal standard insurance, I would like to point out that I wrote SELF INSURED not SEF EMPLOYED since this section is talking about individuals not employers or employees and the fact that it seems a bit harsh to penalize an employee for the failure of their employer to make certain that they have acceptable coverage. This section states the following:
‘20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
Noting that the word “taxpayer” was used, I assume that anyone below the tax threshold would be exempt from this tax. I used the tax threshold for a married couple of $18,700 and rounded up to $19,000 in my statement. If this is “making up figures” then I apologize and would leave it at anyone who is earning any income and be done with it.
Rationing
I wrote:
Section 1401 of the Healthcare Bill establishes the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Data from this research can be used to form QUALYS(quality adjusted life years) QUALYS are used to determine if a patient will live long enough to justify the cost of a medical treatment. If
the patient is young then the treatment is more likely worth the expense on the theory that they will be able to live long enough to make the government investment in their life worth it by being productive and paying their taxes. Older or handicapped citizens, on the other hand, might not be worth the expense and would not be given the treatment since they will most likely die before they can pay back in taxes what the government spent on them. To
date, 5 amendments, (3 in the Senate and 2 in the House.), have been proposed that would not allow comparative effectiveness research to be used to ration health care. All of these amendments have been killed in committee. If there is to be no rationing of health care, then let the President publicly demand that Congress put such a ban into the Healthcare Bill."Agnophile reponce was:
Literally none of this exists in that section of the bill. I read the entire section you are talking about, and it mandates that an office be created to research which treatments and medicines are most effective to improve the quality of care people get. It says not one thing about refusing treatment on the basis of how valuable someone's tax contributions are. Wtf? You're fucking crazy man.
The key point that agnophile is missing is CAN BE USED. The data from the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research has the potential to be used in the rationing of health care similar to what has occurred in the UK. Again, amendments that explicitly require that this data not be used to limit the care a person can receive have been killed in committee. If rationing is not going to be part of the plan, then say so in writing.
Medicare Cuts
I wrote:
Yet the Obama Plan calls for $600 billion in unspecified cuts to Medicare. It effectively guts Medicare Advantage with $250 billion in cuts and this will affect benefits for 25% of the seniors on Medicare. In addition, Medicare will experience a 30% increase in the next 30 years as the Boomer population ages. Making cuts in a program with that much of an increase and saying that nobody will lose their benefits is like saying that everyone will get the same
size slice of pie after taking half of it away and inviting a few more guests over to share it with. It isn’t possible.Agnophile’s rebuttal::
This is a totally batshit insane claim. 600 billion in medicare cuts? That's like 90% of the medicare budget. Cutting 90% of the medicare budget will effect 25% of the people on medicare? Me thinks this is some creative accounting where they take a small cut and factor it out over decades to make it look like a big cut. And the president hasn't proposed cutting medicare, but rather that these changes will reduce medicare costs, and that the money saved should be able to contribute to the public option
If this is an insane claim, then it’s one has been reported by Huffington Press, The Wall Street Journal and Newsmax. Also, please note that I did not say that cutting 90% of Medicare’s budget would affect 25% of the people in Medicare. I said that the cuts in Medicare advantage would affect 25% of Medicare recipients. If you wish to disagree with me, please make certain that you at least take the time to read what is written and understand what I meant before launching a rant.
Look forward to any comments. Please check your egos and flamethrowers at the door. .
"
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
-
Some Thoughts On the Obamacare Speech.
Some Thoughts on the Obamacare Speech
In light of the President’s statement “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”, I decided to do some investigating on some of the statements made by the President in his speech on September 9. I guess I figure that what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
“But thanks to the bold and decisive action we’ve taken since January 1, I can stand here with confidence and say we have pulled this economy back from the brink.”
Currently unemployment stands at 9.7% nationwide, the worst since 1983 and the percentage of new hired workers has dropped from 3.2 % to 2.9 percent since the stimulus bill was passed. Business investments in new equipment are still falling steadily. Is there some bit of good economic news that indicates that the economy is actually improving? Granted, the stock market is moving up but it has yet to be at the same level it was last year at this time. With even the White House saying that it expects unemployment to top 10%, it would appear that the President’s confidence is premature and radiates an overly optimistic take on the matter.
“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
Apparently the President is unfamiliar with the Capps Amendment which passed July 30 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee 30-28. This amendment explicitly allows abortion in the public health plan as well as subsidizing health plans that cover abortion. At least 7 amendments that would excluded abortion funding from the health plan were defeated in various committees. So if abortion funding is not part of the Healthcare Bill, why are the committees adding amendments that would make it part of the bill and killing off ones that would exclude it?
“First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
The President again appears to be unfamiliar with the Healthcare Bill that is currently in Congress. Sec. 312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 specifies that employers MUST enroll their employees into the public health plan or other government improved plan. or face being taxed up to 8% of their payroll. Self insured individuals making more than $19,000 will have to switch or pay a 2.5% tax It doesn’t matter if you’re happy with your coverage, you will take what the government tells you what you can have or else
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 6 -10 million Americans would lose their current coverage immediately and the Lewin Group estimates that up to 100 million Americans would lose their current coverage due to employers having to convert to the public plan.
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
True, the Healthcare Bill doesn’t state that illegal aliens will be given access to public health insurance. However, it provides no requirements that a person has to show that they are a legal resident of the US. On July 30, an amendment proposed by Rep Nathan Deal would have required that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program be used to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services was killed in committee. If illegal aliens are not allow public health care services then why doesn’t the President publicly call for Congress to incorporate it into the bill with means to verify that only legal residents receive government health services?
“Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.”
Section 1401 of the Healthcare Bill establishes the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Data from this research can be used to form QUALYS(quality adjusted life years) QUALYS are used to determine if a patient will live long enough to justify the cost of a medical treatment. If the patient is young then the treatment is more likely worth the expense on the theory that they will be able to live long enough to make the government investment in their life worth it by being productive and paying their taxes. Older or handicapped citizens, on the other hand, might not be worth the expense and would not be given the treatment since they will most likely die before they can pay back in taxes what the government spent on them. To date, 5 amendments, (3 in the Senate and 2 in the House.), have been proposed that would not allow comparative effectiveness research to be used to ration health care. All of these amendments have been killed in committee. If there is to be no rationing of health care, then let the President publicly demand that Congress put such a ban into the Healthcare Bill.
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.”
The Congressional Budget Office in June estimates that over the next ten years, the Healthcare Bill will add $240 billion dollars to the budget deficit. The Lewin Group estimates that in the following 10 years after that, an additional $1 trillion will be added to the deficit. Unless the Healthcare Bill is seriously overhauled, the President will either have to veto it or sign it and be branded a liar.
“And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.”
Yet the Obama Plan calls for $600 billion in unspecified cuts to Medicare. It effectively guts Medicare Advantage with $250 billion in cuts and this will affect benifits for 25% of the seniors on Medicare. In addition, Medicare will experience a 30% increase in the next 30 years as the Boomer population ages. Making cuts in a program with that much of an increase and saying that nobody will lose their benefits is like saying that everyone will get the same size slice of pie after taking half of it away and inviting a few more guests over to share it with. It isn’t possible.
The President’s speech was a fairly good one in terms of delivery and elegance. But in terms of substance, the President needs to come to grips with reality, drop his rhetoric, and throw out any timetable he has about rushing the plan though Congress. Take the time to craft a bill that will help all Americans meet their health care needs. .




































