PopConsumer

Keep On Rockin' Solidiers in Afghanistan

If you haven't seen it yet, this now-viral video of some soldiers in Afghanistan doing a remake of the Lady Gaga and Beyonce video of "Telephone" is awesome and worth watching. I can't imagine it not putting a smile on your pop-culture loving face.

The sad news though is that, in a sadly unsurprising turn of events, the joy and fun exhibited by the young men in that video is being destroyed by those who have to make fun of what they created. The apparent need by some to try and make fun of these guys by implying that the must be gay (which should of course be cause for derision, scorn and laughter /sarcasm) is depressing.

Regardless of how a peace-mongering hippie like me might feel about waging war, I can and do respect people who choose to sign up for military service and who honorably carry out their duties and commands. And I agree completely with Frances Martel at Mediate who writes:

Sounds like making a transcontinental Youtube hit was all fun and games until the Lamestream Media had to go and make fun of them, although it seems the work has been met with almost universal praise. It’s pretty easy to see why they would be a little bashful about it, but creating a fun-filled work of art in your spare time when your day job is fighting in Afghanistan is an impressive and newsworthy feat.

Thank You John Mackey

The part of Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey's recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare"that is, as Lisa Richardson at The Los Angeles Times describes, getting Whole Foods in a whole lot of trouble is this:

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Translation: "We wouldn't be in this mess if you people would just shop at my stores!"

What jumped out to me, however, is Mackey's articulation of the fundamental moral and philosophical heart of the debate on health care reform:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America.

I could not disagree with Mr. Mackey more but I really appreciate him outlining so bluntly the crucial question we as a nation have to ask ourselves in this debate.

The Conversation on Health Care Reform I Wish The Media Would Cover

It is hard to tell from this picture. It might look like these two people are shouting at each other, but they are not. They are two people with very different views on proposed health care reform discussing the issue respectfully.

The conversation took place after the Health Care Town Hall meeting held by Representative Pete Stark (D - CA 13) in San Leandro today. The gentleman on the left approached the women on the right and asked if he could ask them about the meeting as he was one of the hundreds who had been unable to get in. My mother, aunt and I are standing to the side as part of the circle he joined. He began by saying that he is Republican and a born again Christian and that his faith teaches him to be respect all God's children before himself. She responded that she is also a Christian. Some common ground and language established, the conversation continued. As a man of faith he believes in helping the truly needy and believes that we must do something as a nation to cover those without. However, as a Republican he is somewhat distrustful of the abilities of government to address problems. Her t-shirt identified her as a Democrat supporting President Obama and health care reform

What the gentleman would like is a more cautious, limited approach. Instead of a comprehensive bill he would like to approach the various problems with the current health care system in a step-by-step manner, allowing for plain English text being made available to citizens to evaluate and scouring proposed legislation to safeguard against unintended consequences. Essentially he is worried that Congress is moving too far, too fast.

At one point someone in the group suggested looking at analysis done by the Kaiser Family Foundation (which is a non-profit, non-partisan source of policy information separate from the Kaiser HMO health plan) for comparisons between and explanations of different proposed legislation. The gentleman expressed mistrust of even non-profit, non-partisan organizations because in his experience working for them, there's always an agenda. When I asked him who he would trust, he replied that he would trust dialogue, like we were having, amongst ordinary Americans, coming from all points of view, working through the issues. When we left, my aunt, mother and I all hugged the woman in the picture and, just as we had with Rep. Stark, we shook that gentleman's hand and thanked him sincerely for listening and discussing through disagreements with genuine respect.

And, although I disagree politically with the gentleman (I'm on the other end of the spectrum and believe the current proposed reform does not go far enough - I want single payer, Medicare for all - but I will support a public option and consumer protections as an achievable compromise), I could not agree with him more about the need for more of the dialogue we had. That conversation capped off a morning and an experience that made me proud to be American and proud of our democracy, warts and all.

Our little trio waited in line for about an hour to enter the hall. While waiting we were approached to sign various petitions and offered a variety of signs to wave. I was very amused by a guy who took our picture and angrily demanded to know how much we were being paid to astroturf in support of healthcare reform. Dude, do you know what part of the country you're in? Do you realize this is the district that has repeatedly re-elected the only "out" atheist in Congress?  Um, do you really think anyone would have to pay liberals who support Obama and health care reform to show up? They'd more likely have to pay to keep us away, lol! In fact, they had to turn away hundreds of people waiting in the hot sun to get into just this one of the three town halls Rep. Stark held today.

One woman ahead of me in line held a handmade sign with the slogan "No Government Run Health Care." I asked her if she would decline Medicare coverage when she turned 65. She stammered and had no response. She then countered that Medicare would surely be broke when she was eligible so it didn't matter and that since she was from China she knew what governments could do to you. Some other in line asked her to answer my original question and pointed out that we are in America, not China so mistrust of the Chinese government did not explain whether or not she would be willing to accept Medicare benefits. Unwilling to answer my question now, she said she would answer me when she actually had to make the decision. We will have to wait and see.

@Gerard2007 engaged me on twitter claiming my question to this woman was not valid because the argument against the bill is different. Unfortunately trying to have a discussion with 140 characters, a recalcitrant keyboard and spotty cell coverage is difficult. But, Gerard, what I was trying to say was that your argument and this woman's argument are not the same, not that your argument is not valid. I agree with you that the "no government run and don't touch my Medicare" argument is moot (but I don't know that the woman in line recognizes that) and that there are other reasons some have for not wanting the legislation. However, this particular woman wasn't expressing them on her sign. And, while I am happy to discuss issues with those who completely disagree with me, I will point out, Gerard, that when you use terms like "marxbama" it tells me that you are more interested in trumpeting your point of view than in engaging in thoughtful discussion. I'd encourage you to take a page from the man in the picture above. We actually can disagree and all get along. :)

As it so happens, I think my question prodded the woman to think through her points. Her number was picked at random and she got the opportunity inside to ask Representative Stark a question at which point she question the cost of the proposed legislation. She also asked why he wouldn't leave the Federal Employee plan and take the public option proposed instead (talking point alert, though I've non-partisan-ed her language). He pointed out that he wouldn't be immediately eligible to do so, that it would take time to get a public option up and running, initially it would cover those who did not have other options available to them, and that he would, when eligible be willing to use the public option.

Which was another beautiful thing about the experience. People with a range of views were heard from. We were each given a number when we entered and numbers were chosen at random to determine who got a chance to ask a question of Rep. Stark. We are in the fairly liberal East Bay of Northern California. The sentiment in the room was decidedly pro-reform. However, when conservatives asked their questions, liberals made sure the audience stayed silent so that they could be heard and answered. Even the man who ranted about socialism, thanked Rep. Stark for listening and allowing him to voice his views uninterrupted. The only negativity were the "boos" whenever the concept of having to pay for things was brought up. But boos for concepts like taxing income above $350,000 (which is what the House legislation proposes) were quickly drowned out by applause in support.

Stark's responses to questions were a master class in political discourse. Even the questions that had a desired "gotcha" response built into them received straightforward, factual, honest answers and Stark never once fell into the trap those questioners attempted to set for him (on both sides of the issue).

The only problem is that there was no flaming confrontation. No threats made, nobody dragged out of City Hall by police. In fact, about all the police had to do was hold the doors open as people left the auditorium. As grateful we were for their presence, we were equally grateful for not needing them.

So that's why I will be willing to bet you won't see this town hall on cable news let alone the discussion I described at the beginning of this post. Which is a pity and a sad, sad indictment of the state of politics and news media today.

Sonia Sotomayor is not a Mother. So What?

Any justice without kids raises some red flags, in my mind. Having children gives one a “vested” interest in the consequences of one’s rulings. Kids broaden your perspective and make you less selfish. ~ Comment by "randee" on "Obama Names Sotomayor As Supreme Court Pick" at Fitsnews.com

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who is not a mother, to the United States Supreme Court and some recent discussion on feminist blogs about a hypothesis advanced that there is a divide between young, childless feminists and mothers have highlighted the ongoing variation of so-called mommy wars (stay-at-home versus working outside the home, partnered versus single, breast feeding versus bottle feeding and on and on and on) where women who are mothers and women who are not are pitted against each other and alienated from one another other.

A majority of American women will become mothers at some point in their lives. This current fact leads to discussions of women to sometimes become conflated with discussions of mothers. However, a non-insignificant number of women are not mothers either by choice or by circumstance. Women who are mothers can often feel that their voices are dismissed because of judgmental assumptions that parenting has consumed their lives and rendered them mute on any subjects not involving attending to the needs of a child. Women who do not have children can feel marginalized, especially in the blogosphere, by the many, many mothers who write on a range of issues and some who at times imply that motherhood has given them a perspective that should be more highly valued than that of other women. Every time I see a post lead off with some variation of "we should pay attention to women, especially mothers" I get stabby.  These slights, however unintentional they might be, sting even for those of us who are content with our non-parenting lives. I cannot imagine how painful they must be for women who very much desire to parent but are unable to do so for whatever reason. And the focus of too many of my clueless marketing brethren on showering only certain types of mommyblogs and not other life bloggers with attention, trips and gifts certainly doesn't help matters.

In her piece "Raising the Baby Question" Nona Willis Aronowitz, writing for The Nation, sees a disconnect between blogs written by and targeting young feminists and blogs written by mothers discussing issues of parenting. To her credit, Nona did not react defensively to criticism of her thesis from bloggers including Julie Pippert at MOMocrats and Veronica Arreola at Fem2.0 and Viva La Feminista in which they pointed out the many blogs in which issues of feminism and identities as mothers intersect. She engaged and continues to seek common ground. However, I think her perspective still poses an artificial dichotomy. In a follow up piece published at community.feministing.com, Nona sums up her piece with the observation: "In short, I think moms and feminists need to work together more." Which, of course, prompts the obvious reaction in Jessica Valenti's first comment: "The thing is - moms are feminists and feminists are moms. I don't think they're separate groups." However, in reply to Jessica's comment, the mom vs. non-mom dichotomy is raised. happiestsadists writes:

Actually, a lot of feminists aren't moms. And won't be. And a lot of us feel incredibly alienated by what seems like an already mommy-focused shift in feminism.

And from there battle ensues. Sigh.

I don't have children and I read MOMocrats because it is home to some seriously smart, impressively well researched, kick-ass political writing not because I think they have any superior perspective as mothers. As far as I'm concerned, being a mother confers you with superior insight on precisely one issue: how to raise your children. That said, I am in awe of the communities moms who blog have created and the support they give each other through sharing their familiar stories. I will read some parenting blogs for the amazing writing or because I know the mother in real life. But for the most part, I don't generally read blogs that focus on parenting issues because, though I have cared for children and there are children in my life whom I love dearly, I am not a mother and it's just not my tribe nor is it one I ever anticipate joining.

However, becoming a parent, I am quite certain, gives one a different view on life and on issues that affect her and her family. Will women who are mothers bring that view to their writing about feminism, policy and any other topics they might discuss on their blogs? I hope so. Our life experiences whether they are shaped by gender, economics, race, religion or parenting status and how we got there make our voices unique. And we are well served to seek out diverse views and approaches rather than a monolith. As Julie points out in the comments to her post examining Nona's article:

MOMocrats obviously tends to skew towards moms, but by no means do we exclude for moms only. We include DADocrats and FRIENDocrats, too. I have a Facebook category called COOLocrats. :) We've got all sorts of honorary MOMocrats.

The ultimate idea, in my mind, and I think in most MOMocrat minds, is that we want people to understand where moms are coming from, where we hope to go, and how we are going to drive the national conversation to get there (to be pithy).

As Steph said, your frame of reference does shift once you become a parent (mom or dad).

As I said, and as you said, the key is to build our allies---which we have done, including all sorts, such as even single, childless men!---and so if you ask me? You aren't just welcome here, but welcome aboard!

The shared status of being a mother does not lead to all mothers thinking alike and sharing identical views on politics, policy, parenting or justice. Sonia Sotomayor will bring a unique perspective as a divorced, Catholic, Latina non-mom raised in the projects by a widowed single mother. However, I suspect she will have much more in common in her role on the Supreme Court with the late Thurgood Marshall than does Clarence Thomas even though they shared a common background as black men raised in the segregated south. Some were up in arms over President Obama's desire to choose a nominee who is capable of empathy, i.e. understanding that her rulings have very real consequences for the lives of real people and not limiting themselves to an abstract academic and theoretical lens. Now that Sonia Sotomayor has been selected there are those who are disappointed she is not a mother and those, like the commenter who kicked off this post, who believe it disqualifies her from the bench. Perhaps, as Derek Thompson writes for The Atlantic in "Sonia Sotomayor and the Economics of Gender":

[Y]ou might ask, what does this have to do with Sotomayor, who has no children?...

[W]hen Sotomayor says things like this -- "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage" -- it's very easy to label her an scourge of identity politics, but it's more accurate to call her self-assessment honest.

As a non-mother I support and advocate family friendly policies in the workplace that benefit parents as well as non-parents. I might need the Family Medical Leave Act someday to care for an aging parent. Guaranteed paid sick leave should be universal as became incredibly apparent during the recent swine flu scare. If another flu pandemic should come one day, I want sick people to stay home as the CDC directed and not show up so they won't get fired or because they cannot afford to miss a day's pay and infect a workplace. Unfortunately nearly half of workers do not have access to paid sick leave. And that parents can use sick leave time to care for their children, too? Well, fantastic. I want universal healthcare because I believe it is a human right not a profit center despite my supposedly selfish, childfree, un-empathetic, narrow parochial view. In the meantime, though moms in Congress are raising the issue, discriminatory gender-based health insurance pricing affects me as well as moms. Being a parent does not automatically make you unselfish nor does it give you superior willingness or ability to advocate for policies that seek to respect all human beings. And not being a mother does not automatically imbue you with a lack of interest in or ability and desire to advocate for policies in the workplace or the world that benefit parents.

When I worked for Kraft Foods in a division led by Ann Fudge, I was inspired by her perspective that everybody should take needed time off be that for parents to spend time with their children, for partners to build their relationship or singles to seek a relationship, build a family or find community. She recognized that we are people beyond our desks and that no play makes for dull workers no matter their relationship or family status.

Besides we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. The very awesome Joan Blades, who is a force in the creation of MomsRising.org, notes that: "It is not right that a single mother makes sixty cents to an equally qualified man's dollar or for a mother to be 79% less likely to be offered a job than a woman that is not a mom." Perhaps this is because women without children are perceived as willing to be chained to their desk and not make pesky requests for time off. But then there's this lovely bit of news:

Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

Well then, I see your cold, odd childless women and raise you a (very slightly) higher unemployment rate for mothers versus women without children. Digging into the numbers, however, reveals that it isn't so much as moms versus non-moms as it is single parents versus married parents and the majority of male parents are married and the majority of single parents are women. So, in other words, no matter how you slice it, patriarchy and ridiculous assumptions about the lives of people and how they should live them trump common sense and the recognition that companies who treat people as humans and not cogs in a machine tend to be more productive and profitable. And you don't have to be a parent to see the folly in ignoring that.

As every one of us has a mother, I think we can all appreciate that motherhood can be difficult, at times thankless and often undervalued, and be grateful to those women who do it well. We all benefit. Sonia Sotomayor pays deep respect to her mother as a strong woman and parent. Motherhood should be celebrated and respected. I understand that a mother will almost certainly have a differently-tuned perspective than I. However the same is true for a woman dealing with infertility while trying to become a mother and is true for a woman who made a deliberative choice to be child-free and is true for a father and so on. However, being a mother does not confer superior wisdom on any issue (except, again, with some limited exceptions, what is right for you and your child). Woman does not equal mother and mother does not trump woman. Nevertheless, too often non-moms hear "MOMS, MOMS, MOMS - you have no value as a woman unless you have a child!" And too often moms hear "you've lost your brain and value as a person beyond raising a child!" No surprise that people can get defensive and overinflate the worth of their status. Still, is it too much to ask for that "moms vs. non-moms" be less of an issue and that there be more respect for our differences in circumstance and choice?

Cross-posted at BlogHer and I encourage you to click over and read the excellent comments there.

Small Business Recession Realities

As a small businessperson, I am appreciative of President Obama's announcement of our "bailout" however I'm not terribly optimistic for what it will do for me.

The focus is on increasing lending and unsticking the frozen credit markets. There is evidence of thawing as some large businesses have informed the government that they will not need loans because they've been able, finally, to secure them in the commercial market. And there are many small businesses who will be helped by credit availability like those who buy equipment, parts, "ingredients" (e.g. seeds for farmers) and have to have cash upfront with revenues coming much later when the product is finished and sold.

For many of us though what we need is customers not debt. Loans to clothing manufacturers or coffeehouse owners so they can buy fabric and beans will do them no good if they cannot sell clothes and lattes because consumers have no jobs and no money with which to purchase what are now luxury items in this economy. And debt, as far as I can see, is useless for those of us in service businesses, like me. The only way the SBA loans and tax breaks will benefit me is if the businesses of potential clients grow and they can purchase the marketing services I sell.

What is really going to put entrepreneurs like me out of business is the cost of health insurance. I started my business at the beginning of 2005. It grew steadily until the recession hit full force last year in 2008. From the end of 2007 (my best year though not yet sufficiently profitable and steady enough to create jobs and hire employees as I'd like to be able to do) to the start of 2009 my revenues declined and my health insurance premiums increased. My premiums went up an anstronomical 62% in one year which translates to thousands of dollars annually. I have to increase my revenue by large double digits just in order to get back to 2007 levels so taking on and servicing additional debt does not seem like the smartest approach at this time. Read this awesome guest post by Karoli Kuns at Francine Hardaway's Huffington Post blog for more about how devastating health care costs are to small and large businesses and the economy in general.

Thus I am in the same boat as many American whether they are small business owners, employees, or among the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed (and, oh by the way, my state, California, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country - several of my family members included) - waiting for health care reform and for a tide to lift us all up.

Related Reading:

Melissa at MOMocrats: Is Health Care Reform Possible?

Massachusetts' struggle with cost containment to sustain their universal health care coverage program:

“Frankly, it’s very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do,” Mr. Patrick said in an interview. “At some level, you’ve just got to say, ‘Look, that’s just not acceptable, and more to the point, it’s not sustainable.’ ”

Rick Warren and the Inauguration: Can We Find Common Ground?

When President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration team announced the pick of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation a firestorm of controversy was unleashed.

A wide range of groups on the left and the right immediately denounced Obama's choice. Supporters of gay rights, still reeling from the passage of Proposition 8 in California, joined women, pro-choice supporters and progressives of many stripes in criticizing Obama for the choice and calling for the invitation to be revoked. Some conservatives denounced Warren for accepting Obama's invitation because of Obama's support for abortion rights.

Many Americans know Warren as the genial Hawaiian shirt-wearing author of one of the all time best-selling books, The Purpose Driven Life. Warren is also known for championing issues such as fighting global warming, poverty and HIV/AIDS. In an era where evangelical Christian leaders are better known for their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, why the controversy over the choice of Warren?

Despite Warren's support for issues that cause some in the Christian Right to view him as unacceptably moderate, Warren is a Southern Baptist who, consistent with his denomination's theology, holds a very conservative, fundamental Christian perspective on social issues. [Note: Billy Graham who has counseled every sitting president for decades is also a Southern Baptist who did not garner such protest] Those who are hurt, disappointed, insulted and angry at the choice of Warren point to his comparisons of gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and incest, his equating abortion rights supporters to Nazis and Holocaust deniers, his preaching of Southern Baptist theology of wifely submission and a central fundamental Christian view that non-Christians of any sort are condemned to hell. Accordingly, his church's work abroad to combat HIV and AIDS includes a healthy component of conversion work which further taints the image of Warren pushing for some sort of new selfless, liberal evangelical Christianity.

In the ensuing debate cynicism, disappointment and mistrust abound. Some pundits claim that this is merely a political calculation on the part of Obama - throw a bone to the right to create cover so he can move left once in office. Some progressives claim that this is further evidence that Obama merely claimed to be a lefty liberal and is moving to the "center-right." Some women and members of the LGBT community who supported Obama warily feel sucker punched and view this as proof that he does not actually support their causes. Others are having flashbacks to Bill Clinton's promises to the gay community which he immediately caved on instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act" and therefore are understandably suspicious of Obama's claims of being a "fierce advocate for equality." One prominent LGBT leader has decided not to attend the inauguration. Others still plan to go but will turn their backs to Warren in silent protest.

Some are asking if there is a way in which we can overcome this divide. Obama campaigned on a belief and promise that he would reach out to even those who disagree with him, that there are ways in which we can find common ground and that there is no red America, no blue America, just the United States of America. Obama has spoken about Warren's willingness to invite him to Saddleback church when many on the right were outraged that Warren would offer him a platform. Some point to the Reverend Joseph Lowrey, civil rights activist and icon and gay marriage supporter who will also share the stage with Obama and bless his inauguration by giving the benediction. Others point out that Warren's prayer will be short and symbolic and that he will not make policy and therefore should not be seen as representative of what Obama's administration will mean for gays, women, non-Christians and liberals.

I am torn. Everytime I read an opinion on this topic I wobble back and forth. I absolutely understand why many are outraged over Obama's invitation to Warren. I too wonder along with others why couldn't Jim Wallis of Sojurners been the evangelical to get the invitation? Others suggest recently ousted leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Richard Cizik. Despite Warren's explanations and claims of support for civil unions, his "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage which certainly sound like he puts gay people in the same class as pedophilia, polygamy and incest is hateful and I agree with Stephen Waldman of Beliefnet and political reporter and author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right, E.J. Dionne Jr. that Warren should apologize. Making what many view as too little, too late progress and then making videos dismissing such views as "silly" and calling it just the rants of slacker bloggers does not make me feel better about seeking common ground and reconciliation. I totally get why those of us who disagree so thoroughly with Warren wonder why it is we who supported Obama who are asked to compromise and understand while those who vehemently opposed Obama are offered an olive branch.

However, when I read calls to embrace what I have in common with Rick Warren such as Lee Stranahan's I want to get there. I voted for Obama because he is pragmatic and seeks compromise. I don't think that by maintaining divides we can accomplish anything. I think we must find a way to heal partisan divides and find common ground. I have a perhaps crazy, naive belief that if we can just listen to and hear each other we will find that most of us want most of the same things. But I don't know how we get there.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Are you mad, sad or glad about the choice to invite Warren to give the invocation? Should Warren's invitation be rescinded? Should Warren reject the invitation? Is there a way to resolve this issue?

Important and Urgent Health Insurance Information

First, if you have not had employer health insurance for the past three months or longer and you have children, investigate the California Healthy Families Children's Health Insurance Program and put in an application.  Due to budget cuts the program will start putting families on a waiting list later this week (December 18th). 

Unfortunately, this will not be available for the many people who've just lost their jobs and insurance.  If you are a recent victim of the economy, if you can at all swing it, sign up for COBRA coverage.  If you are in California you can have federal COBRA for 18 months, then California COBRA for another 18 months and then you can get a HIPAA plan.  All insurers that sell in a state have to offer their 2 most popular plans under this option.  It's all expensive but it's the only way you can maintain guaranteed access as you get with group, employer plans.

And, I was going to share with you my favorite source of information on health insurance policy in each state but unfortunately they are also victims of the economy and have lost their funding.  Sigh.

Check your individual states health insurance department.  California's is here.  You must do the work to educate yourself and be persistent with the insurance companies who will, in my experience, give you bad information and the run around.  Sadly, even if you can get individual insurance on the open market (difficult unless you are a skinny, non-smoking 25 year old dude who has never seen a doctor as an adult), you don't have much protection from losing that insurance if the company decides you are not profitable enough.

Black Women's Voices: Understanding Why We Don't Fit Your Definitions

There are a couple of posts which you'll see in my links but I wanted to give them a bit of extra attention.  Both deal with ongoing issues arising from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.  And both deal with the invisibility of black people and are written by black women.

First, Annette John-Hall who writes for The Philadelphia Inquirer writes about "Black Women's Clinton Problem."  In her piece (from which I can pull no quote because you really need to read the entire thing) she includes a range of black women's voices.  And together they weave a portrait of a feminism which does not include them (us) and of how the power of the presence of Michelle Obama helps render them (us) visible.

Second, Kim Pearson has a post on BlogHer which was difficult for her to write but I am grateful she did.  I urge you to read her post as well as the two related posts linked at the end.  Professor Kim's deeply personal and brilliantly argued piece helps explain why (mostly white) people do not understand the comments of Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which are being played repeatedly in the media.  She also weaves into her narrative the response to Michelle Obama's comments about being really proud of her country.

As a commenter pointed out, Kim is patient and kind in her explanation.  I'll be a bit more blunt - Rev. Wright's and Michelle Obamas comments are offensive, racist and unpatriotic only if patriotism is understood through a frame of a dominant white norm.  And, as it so happens, blacks are permitted full citizenship and patriotism only on the terms of the dominant white norm, regardless of the fact that blacks have fought long and hard (and continue to fight) for access to and inclusion in the definition of what it means to be "American."  That's why it is permissible, if not expected, to call out Rev. Wright, to cast a suspicious eye on both Obamas, to continue to wonder and worry about their patriotism and to demand that the Obamas prove themselves worthy of full American citizenship when the patriotism and citizenship of the white candidates is never, ever questioned even when white pastors routinely preach similarly if not more incendiary and nakedly anti-American sermons.

In the context of the Clinton campaign, black women are rendered invisible in the construction of "woman" yet again.  The hype around Obama's minister and Michelle Obama's comments illustrates how black people in America are routinely denied full citizenship and assumed not to be patriotic until proven otherwise.

I have a simple request for those who don't immediately get that when you hear Geraldine Ferraro or Sean Hannity rant.  Listen to Annette and Kim.  Please.  I hope you can hear.

Oh the irony - not rich enough, not poor enough

Tony Snow the White House spokesperson is leaving his post because he cannot afford to live on $168,000 a year.  While in the White House I believe he had health insurance paid for by taxpayers in addition to that poverty-level salary.

But he said his decision to leave was for financial, not health, reasons. "I ran out of money," said Snow, who earned much more in his former job as a Fox News commentator than at his government salary of $168,000 a year.

"We took out a loan when I came to the White House, and that loan is now gone. So I'm going to have to pay the bills," said Snow, who is married with three children.

Snow is the spokesperson for the president who vows to veto the SCHIP expansion bill which has bipartisan support.  The veto is because to a lesser degree it will slightly reduce support for a Medicare program which supports private insurance companies but mostly because of the fear that allowing families living on $60,000 a year to benefit from taxpayer funded insurance will certainly lead us down the path to socialism.

The American Cancer Society announced that it is devoting its advertising budget for the next year to the issue of the uninsured because lack of insurance will ultimately render any gains in treatment moot.

One study published this year found that uninsured breast cancer patients were more than twice as likely to have their cancer diagnosed in late stages as those with private insurance. Other studies have found similar results with cancers of the larynx and mouth.

So Tony Snow who cannot live on $168,000 a year had his cancer treated in part at taxpayer expense and he speaks for a president who believes that the children of families living on $60,000 a year should not benefit from taxpayer insurance because they are not poor enough.  Bush feels that they should either suck it up and pay for private insurance (because it's simply a choice not to, certainly their employer offers a policy they can afford, it's not a choice between food, housing or insurance nor a case of not being able to find a company to sell them a policy) or just go to an emergency room for primary care (where they, along with illegal immigrants can get better care for free than honest, hard working, legal Americans with insurance get).

Daily Topics Friday 8/17/2007

According to some research from the Pew Center (sent to me by the lovely and talented Denise) y'all are most interested in stories about disasters so let's start there.

Sadly, rescue efforts for the trapped miners in Utah had to be halted after 3 rescuers died and 6 were injured.   In a related story, Arianna Huffington blasts traditional media coverage of the mining disaster for leaving out the mining safety question.

Hurricane Dean has claimed his first life as he heads to the US.  Erin continues her dump on Texas.  Hawaii recovers from Flossie, earthquakes, eruptions and a tsunami warning courtesy of the quake in Peru.

Enough with the disaster talk already?

Jazz legend Max Roach has died.   Mata has a lovely tribute with some links to his music at BlogHer.

Skype broke yesterday.  Is it time to rethink giving up our land lines?  I personally keep one living here in earthquake country and to call 911 without getting a busy signal or transferred which has happened to me when I've called on a cell phone.  How about you?  Have you given up your land line in favor of cell, VOIP, or Skype?

I found this story intriquing... CARE is turning down $45 million in federal funding for food aid.

OK, there's plenty more bad, sad and wonky news to discuss but let's end for today with this:

The So You Think You Can Dance top two and winner (who I voted for so I'm happy - how about you?)...