Near the end of life, too often, patients are unable to effectively communicate their wishes to their doctor. The counseling provision in the proposed healthcare reform bill would ensure that the patient’s wishes are recorded ahead of time in order to give them the dignity of choice in end-of-life care. A campaign on conservative talk radio has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life “euthanasia.”

Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a terminally ill patient about his or her wishes concerning end-of-life medical interventions he/she would prefer and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

But on right-wing radio programs, religious e-mail lists and countless conservative blogs, the proposal has been described and, indeed, caricatured, as “putting granny down.”

 
The following is a debate from my facebook page that began when I posted the following status:

 “I believe that no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and nobody should go broke because they get sick. And most importantly, nobody should be denied because of a pre-existing condition. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day.”

And here is the conversation that ensued:
Jane Doe: What do you think about the cuts which are going to be made to elderly healthcare with this proposed option? dont you find it unfair that with the new plan, doctors will be paid extra if they discuss ending treatment with elderly patients, despite said patients’ wishes?

Me: First of all, end-of-treatment counseling appointments are VOLUNTARY. There is no counseling “despite the patients’ wishes.” You’re asking me if I think the fictitious “death panel” is “unfair.” In response to your question, I would think it was preposterous if doctors really were counseling patients to end treatment despite the patient’s wishes. However, that is not happening. It’s right wing TV and talk radio that are blowing the counseling provision out of proportion to create a distraction in order to engender opposition to the health care bill.

JD: It may be surprising-but i rarely ever watch fox news. nor do i allow propaganda to radically alter my opinions on any subject… ok, i should have chosen words more carefully. the sessions are voluntary. however, if docs are given extra for such counseling, who’s to say they won’t push for it with patients? I don’t want to live in a country where doctors care more about making $$$ through government loopholes than about the patients who need them.

Me: If a patient is near death, they can’t effectively express to their doctor exactly how they want to be taken care of. It is much better for doctors to know ahead of time how a patient wants to be taken care of, so that the patient’s wishes are followed. End-of-life consultation isn’t this evil thing intended to “put granny down,” and doctors aren’t looking to make tons of money off letting patients die faster. It is simply a way to let patients have more of an impact on their own treatment, and thus, more dignity. And if you’re as distrustful of doctors as you just stated, shouldn’t you be for the socialization of healthcare as opposed to its continued privatization? Just saying, if doctors are moneygrubbing evildoers as you claim, wouldn’t a little more regulation be in order…?

JD: no-i am an american who lives in a capitalist society with free enterprise, and should be allowed to CHOSE who takes care of my body. doctors should be allowed to run their own private businesses, without worrying about the government stepping in. just think of some of your favorite government institutions- the dmv, for example. it’s awesome! it’s efficient… and of the highest quality! lets now translate that concept to medicine. do you sincerely believe that the government would be able to regulate something as enormous as healthcare? Other systems, like medicaid/medicare are now defunct. What’s to say this idea will be different, with such a terrible track record? I think that overall- you are being far too idealistic. Claiming that doctors dont care about making extra money. who wouldnt want to make extra money? and do you really think that obama cares about granny’s dignity? get real. this is all about gaining power.

Me: Oops! I said “socialism”! amazing how its become such a dirty word these days… now to the topic: people want to make money, but I really do think that doctors, for the most part, genuinely care about their patients. When it comes down to it, the patient can say “no” to end of life counseling. You hold very contradictory opinions concerning health care. you claim to be a supporter of free enterprise, yet you don’t trust doctors to run their own businesses. You call me idealistic for believing in them (i.e. that they aren’t evil, as you seem to think) although believing in small business is a fundamental part of conservative ideology. I appreciate what you said about the inefficacy of government run programs, however, the current health care bill wouldn’t turn the health care industry into another DMV. it wouldn’t put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, and you can still choose your own doctor and insurance. the counseling provision is such a small part of the bill, and clearly, we won’t agree on it.

I find it interesting that so many people are afraid of socialized health care, when France’s health care system was rated “the best in the world” (number 1) by the World Health Organization, while the USA remains at number 37, behind Costa Rica and Chile. Obama’s health care bill isn’t necessarily socialized medicine, but if he wanted to go that way, I would wholeheartedly support it. This conversation just goes to show how brainwashed many Americans are, in that they believe that the way of the past is the only way.

Personally, I will never smoke marijuana, nor do I think it is necessarily a good thing that others do so. However, my opinion about the morality of personal marijuana use is irrelevant in the face of strong evidence that it must be legalized.

There is no reason why marijuana should be treated differently than alcohol and tobacco in terms of its legality. All of them are bad for you, and all of them are worse for you the more you use. Nearly 100 million Americans acknowledge having used marijuana during their lives. It makes no sense to continue to treat nearly half of all Americans as criminals for their use of a substance that does not have drastically different  health risks than alcohol or tobacco—especially because it costs so much to prosecute all marijuana related arrests. A better and more sensible solution would be to tax and regulate cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco.

This measure would accomplish several things: First, it would address the health issue of marijuana use. Dealers often add more ingredients to their particular stash of marijuana so they can sell more, and therefore profit more. These additives are mostly worse for you than the actual marijuana, and can be lethal. If the government regulated marijuana like it does tobacco and alcohol, it would also have the power to regulate what goes into it, thereby making it much safer and getting rid of lethal additives. Legalization would reduce health care costs by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug—situations that will remain prevalent without government implemented product safety standards.

Legalizing marijuana would greatly impact the covert nature of the marijuana trade itself. Dealers are the ones in power now, what with their ability to, in large-scale cases, greatly threaten the safety of the general public. One example is the drug war in Mexico (in which 10,000 people have already been killed), another is drug related violence we hear about every day on local news. Dealers are the source of the danger, and if the government stepped in and legalized marijuana, there would be much less need for dealers.

Economically, it makes sense to legalize and regulate marijuana. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs, and prohibition prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale. First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession. Second, legalization saves prosecutorial, judicial and incarceration expenses.

   Harvard University Professor Jeffrey A. Miron created a report endorsed by over 500 economists titled The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. The report shows that taxing and regulating marijuana  in the same way as alcohol or tobacco might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually for a state’s individual budget, and upwards of $300 billion nationally.

Many are concerned that, with legalization, suddenly there will be an increase in marijuana use. What they don’t realize is that people who want to smoke a joint can obtain marijuana very easily anyway. Those who want to use it already can- its legality or lack thereof wouldn’t change that.

To put one’s faith in the anti-drug movement is to ignore the fact that it just isn’t working. We are now in the same position we were in during Prohibition. Everyone who wanted alcohol could already obtain it, and eventually, the country was forced to acknowledge that their efforts to put an end to alcohol consumption had failed.

I am by no means suggesting that we just “give in”—I am suggesting that we assess the situation without a cloud of cultural stigma impeding our ability to see reality. In order to accomplish this, marijuana must be legalized, and in doing that, we can protect the health of a significant portion of our population, eliminate middlemen from the marijuana industry and profit economically.

The Church Father Tertullian tells us “the woman should wear a simple dress, be mournful and full of repentance to suffer for her inheritance from Eve, the shame of being the one who committed the original sin and the guilt of being the cause of mankind’s condemnation.”

That’s great, Tertullian. So I should stop writing immediately and repent for my feeble, womanish thoughts?

No such luck.

While Tertullian’s opinion isn’t held by many people in the Western world, variations are still visible in everyday life. In our society, there is a collective rejection of the feminine that was, in reality, born long before any of us would think to question where it came from. Any connotation with femininity (i.e. showing emotion, the color pink) implies weakness, in today’s society. How many times have we heard the phrase “Don’t be such a girl”? When did an association with the feminine become a symbol for weakness, or even evil?

It is necessary first to look at how women were perceived “in the beginning.” During the Neolithic period (10,000 B.C. to 3,500 B.C.), men were hunters and women stayed back to tend to their dwelling and children. Tasks were divided without any idea of superiority- that is, it was not “better” to be a hunter than it was to tend a garden. In South America, the society known as the Amazons was headed by women, who acted as warriors and spiritual leaders. In Mesopotamia, the Goddess Nin-khursag was worshipped just as much as the God Enlil. Celtic tribes worshipped a divine mother, as did the Native Americans.

With the rise of Christianity, and mainly the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, feminism in the western world would change forevermore.  Let me say first that I have no problem with the original Christian/Jewish religious texts, just the misinterpretation of those texts. For example, one third of American adults interpret the Bible as the literal word of God, when it is really a collection of anecdotes and historical accounts from various religious students. It is this literal interpretation (Eve being to blame for Original Sin and the condemnation of mankind) that helped create an image of woman as a temptress who leads God-fearing men to the Devil. Because of this incorrect conclusion, religious groups that still worshipped the Goddess were wiped out, often including the torture of women as penitence for the sins of Eve. The Adam and Eve parable provided a reason to bar women from obtaining clerical positions in the same way they had been priestesses in generations prior. Generation after generation, women were taught that they were inferior and made to feel guilty for the reproductive organs they were born with. Even Martin Luther referred to women as “magnificent animals” and did not consider them to be human.

So how does this history translate to our modern view of women? Women have won rights such as the right to vote, and certain religious groups allow women to be in the clergy. While I am grateful for these rights, they are still the rights that women already had at one point in history.

Now, problems with feminism are more psychological than anything else. For example, it has been scientifically proven that intelligent women are less attractive to men. A 2005 study by the University of Edinburgh found that for women, with each 16 point increase in IQ, are 40% less likely to be married. Men, with each 16 pt. IQ jump, increased their chances of marriage by 35%. Every day I see smart girls acting dumb so as not to scare off prospective boyfriends.

Intelligent, successful women are seen as threats to society. The widespread hatred of Martha Stewart is a perfect example of this phenomenon- she is a charismatic, successful and driven woman who happens to have made her fortune by- gasp!- being a fantastic HOSTESS. How dare she!

Many women claim to be feminists and reject traditionally held feminine roles, such as mothers or homemakers. I believe that this rejection of all things feminine is antifeminist as well, because shouldn’t we embrace the rights we’ve won while simultaneously being proud of all things feminine?

In conclusion, girls really have it harder than guys. I’m talking about the historical reasons why we collectively have a very skewed perception of women and feminism, and that girls are forced to search for an identity in a society that praises them for being beautiful, but punishes them for being intelligent.

Nations began signing a treaty banning cluster bombs on Wednesday. 100 of the 192 nations in the UN are expected to sign, with non-signing exceptions such as China, Russia and the United States. I don’t understand why we are so reluctant to sign the ban- After all, 98 percent of cluster bomb victims are civilians, 27 percent of those being children. Cluster bombs are essentially lots of little bombs packed into artillery shells, bombs and missiles that shoot them out over a large area in order to cover more ground. However, some of the bombs lie dormant for years, and they are all too often deactivated by unsuspecting children who are distracted by their unfamiliar shape and bright, toy-like coloring, much like land mines.

In the US, scientists and weapons experts work every day to develop new ways to kill. I find that reality repulsive, but if we are working on new weapons all the time, why would it be harmful to ban a more outdated, clearly less accurate method such as cluster bombing?

Despite these statistics, the US refuses to sign the ban. Weapons such as cluster bombing or (God forbid) nuclear warheads desensitize us to the raw humanity of war- with the push of a button, one person can end the lives of thousands or even millions of people, and maim countless others. I don’t believe humans should have that kind of power, but that is the reality in which we live. Because all it takes is the push of a button, for some people, it seems like a “cleaner” war- but the truth is that war is never “clean.” The fact that the US is so reluctant to sign a ban that could potentially save that 98 percent of innocent, civilian victims is disgusting and yet entirely typical of our overly hawkish foreign policy. If our President can look someone in the eye and tell them that he is willing to take responsibility for that 98 percent of unecessary casualties, it demonstrates his lack of thoughtfulness and chilling insensitivity- another reason I hope the door of the White House hits him on the way out.

The abyss created by America’s recent culture wars only grows deeper as it divides the far-right Republicans and those who are conservative, but socially liberal. My own father, for example, is a lifelong Republican, yet he doesn’t support the socially conservative agenda being pushed by his party’s vice presidential and presidential candidates. The disparity between the two groups of conservatives has only grown wider with this election, and now, cautious fiscal conservatives are no longer represented by the party that has instead adopted a slash-and-burn approach to economic policy (i.e. McCain’s proposed spending freeze). In much the same way, fiscal conservatives/social liberals no longer have a political party that truly represents them. They are now forced to choose between two candidates who they don’t feel strongly about one way or another. I would recommend that independents and fiscal conservatives/social liberals form their own political party. Hopefully, the extremist philosophy of social conservatism would fade away election after election, leaving the U.S. without the ideological dead weight that inhibits societal progress.

The liberal-hating witch hunt has begun, courtesy of McCain-Palin ‘08.

But this isn’t the first time Republicans have appealed to the mob-forming instinct of a certain sect of low-information voters. Let’s think back to a time of poodle skirts and greased lightning…

In 1950, Sen. Joseph McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period of intense anti-communist suspicion inspired by the tensions of the Cold War. He claimed that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. During this time, referred to sometimes as the “Second Red Scare,” many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning. The primary targets of these suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. In other words, liberals.

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman called for a movement by the media to investigate liberals (or “extreme leftists,” as she put it) in the Senate and Congress to see whether or not they were “Anti-American.” The new robo-calls by the McCain campaign accuse Barack Obama of being friends with people who “kill Americans.” I have now seen multiple Republican politicians refer to liberals and, more specifically, Barack Obama, as “Anti-American.”

So will someone please enlighten me, poor, unrepentantly “leftist” gal that I am, as to how eliminating women’s right to choose, sending AMERICANS to die for a war based on exaggerated evidence, creating a healthcare plan that ignores the plight of those who can’t afford health insurance, inciting radical right wing mobs under the slogan that the Democratic opponent is “palling around with terrorists” when that “terrorist” (singular) is now repentant, rehabilitated and an advocate for social reform, is “pro American”?

But clearly, these Republican politicians I’ve mentioned don’t believe in rehabilitation and reform. If they did, they’d try it with our country.

Somewhere, Susan B. Anthony is turning over in her grave.

It’s insulting that the McCain campaign would try to appeal to female voters by nominating a woman who is radically antifeminist. During her career as mayor, Palin approved a law that makes rape victims pay for all forensic and medical exams after they have been raped. What kind of barbarian makes women essentially pay to be raped?

Palin believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned (although, when interviewed, she said she believes there is an implicit right to privacy in the constitution). What kind of backwards society would Palin’s America be?

We can be certain, given her record, that we would see an even more intolerant, unsupportive America for women. The Bush administration this month is quietly cutting off birth control supplies to some of the world’s poorest women in Africa. They, along with the world, are turning a blind eye to the fact that without birth control supplies, these women have an increased chance at dying in childbirth- a chance that is already 1 in 10. If Palin thinks nothing of making rape victims pay hundreds of dollars after they are raped in the town of Wasilla, Alaska, then what would stop her from continuing to ignore women’s rights on a global scale? The last thing Palin needs is a wider sphere of influence.

Palin has strongly encouraged an abstinence-only sex education curriculum because of her belief that birth control is a form of abortion. The United States has double the amount of teenage pregnancies as Canada, largely due to our backwards idea that abstinence only sex ed will work in 21^st century America. Palin’s solution for the abortion problem is “a more supportive community for teenage mothers.” Does she forget that under Democratic presidents, there are statistically fewer abortions because of increased funding and attention to sex education? Apparently. We can be sure that, in a McCain-Palin administration, the needs of women will continue to be ignored and a retrograde attitude towards teenage pregnancy will continue to be held.

McCain didn’t think it was important to choose a qualified female nominee. When asked about Palin’s knowledge, GOP advisors say that being knowledgeable ”isn’t her function” and proceed to talk more about “exciting the base.” If her job isn’t to be knowledgeable, then what is it? To be a more attractive alternative to a furry elephant mascot? In effect, McCain chose a female running mate because he thinks women are stupid enough to vote solely based on gender and that nobody will pay attention to the fact that their “feminist” candidate is no more a feminist than Sen. McCain himself, who has consistently voted against progressive laws for women’s rights, including equal pay for equal work.

One could argue that the VP choice shouldn’t decide the election- the presidential candidate should. I agree. But what does it say about John McCain that he would nominate a woman who, if given the power, would reduce women’s rights to what they were in 1920?

No one who votes for a McCain-Palin ticket can call themselves a feminist, because they would knowingly be voting into office a candidate who (just like her running mate), would turn back the clock on women’s rights if given the power- and she’d do it with a wink.

World, please don’t wink at me, say the words “betcha,” “ain’t,” “darn,” or stare at me unblinkingly with a bemused, brainwashed-looking smile. If, however, you absolutely insist on making a hillbilly caricature of yourself in my presence, I may have to resort to physical violence to preserve my sanity. Last night’s cringe-inducing responses from the clearly unqualified Alaska governor Sarah Palin made me want to vomit, especially given the knowledge that she may be (God forbid!) President one day.

While Joe Biden gave strong, substantive, specific answers debunking the “maverick” myth, the “we’re reformers” myth, and the “we’re not like Bush” myth with a forceful but calm delivery, Palin transformed herself into a cartoon. The fact that she believes she can appeal to mainstream America by dumbing everything down is an insult.  Sarah dear, you can “say it ain’t so” all you want, but it’s fairly obvious that you have only a tangential grasp of policy at best, and that you were very well trained by those GOP ideologues that gave you those flashcards to practice with.

It’s interesting that now, Obama/Biden looks like the “safer” ticket to vote for, with the McCain/Palin ticket looking like a risk, which it is.

While Palin didn’t trip, start weeping, or throw her frameless glasses to the ground in frustration, she most certainly didn’t do well. Let’s look at this analytically: If Palin were a man, and if she hadn’t just had an incredibly embarrassing week, pundits would be tearing apart her performance en masse like my fat chihuahua tears apart my old beanie babies.

It’s clear which candidate looked ready to step in for the president if need be. I’ll give you a hint: It’s not the folksy cliche machine otherwise known as “Hockey Mom,” “Maverick,” or “Joe Sixpack.”

For someone who claims to want to take politics out of the current bailout plan, John McCain was able to put politics right back into the equation. First, like a schoolyard bully, McCain practically dared Obama to be as “take charge” as he is. By that, I mean John McCain tried to take control of his dwindling poll numbers by looking like an altruist. America, don’t be fooled. John McCain called our economic state a “crisis” last week- yet it was only when the new ABC poll (in which McCain was 9 points down) was showed, that he decided to ”suspend” his campaign.  He managed to do several network interviews and spend some time at home, yet somehow an actual substantive debate is tacky when the economy is crashing and burning. When McCain went to Washington, he didn’t make the bailout a shining example of bipartisanship as he promised- rather he walked in on an already bipartisan agreement, introduced a very partisan new idea, and proceeded to undo the past six days’ work within a couple hours. At the comedic farce that was his meeting with Bush this morning, McCain spoke just once and only for a couple minutes. Did he redeem his lack of input with a stunning, “maverick” style new idea? Of course not.

In short, John McCain put his own potical gain over the very real needs of our country. But never fear, McCain has Sarah Palin to lean on. She knows a thing or two about the economy- As governor of Alaska, she saved money by making women pay for rape kits!

As Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel said- in the name of progress, he stalled it. he claimed to take politics out of it and put politics right back into it.

As I said- Liar, liar.

1. “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.”

This was slap at all those who work hard to build up communities from the bottom up. Often working in inner city areas, community organizers teach local leaders how to lead and improve their community when politicians just aren’t getting the job done. I’m sorry, Sarah, but the paltry 616 votes you received to be elected mayor don’t make you better than Barack Obama. I’m sorry that, in your book, the Iditarod races are more important than helping the disadvantaged get healthcare. While the first portion of the RNC was supposed to be about service, I guess that was purely political, then, since you so blatantly mock it?

2. Palin also said that the war in Iraq is “a task from God”

……Are you kidding me?

3. “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and [Obama's] worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

When more than half of the men and boys -some as young as fourteen- detained at Guantanamo Bay as suspected terrorists and tortured for years by US officials were eventually released without charge, there may be a reason for having those most minimal of rights accorded to suspects after all.

Sarah: This is democratic nation, not a fascist regime.