The Great Depression

I have a confession to make.

I'm depressed.

Not like "feeling down" depressed, but actually, truly, clinically depressed.

I first went on antidepressants when I was pregnant with my son 11 years ago. The pregnancy seemed to trigger something in my brain that turned on a hard-core depression which I had never experienced before. 

And let me tell you, it wasn't (and isn't) pretty. As a person with a chronic medical illness, I can easily say that I'd rather deal with physical illness than mental illness. At least when you're physically ill, people seem to understand that you're sick. When you're depressed, people don't see it, and if they do, they think you just need to snap out of it or think positive thoughts. They think that you're weak, or that you're just being lazy or cranky.

But depression isn't really a state of mind. It's an imbalance of chemicals in your brain that can't be easily fixed. You're not really depressed "about" anything, but then again, everything depresses you. 

For example, I'm currently depressed about being depressed. It's not fair to my family to be laying around all day long doing nothing, but the thought of doing anything other than laying in a fetal position and watching Netflix depresses me. Which means my house is a mess, which depresses me even more. And since I've been laying around depressed, I haven't been cooking much of anything, which means my kids are eating a lot of frozen pizza, which further depresses me while I berate myself as a terrible mother.

Then there's the fact that it's Christmas time, which is normally my favorite holiday. But because of my depression, I can't enjoy it, which depresses me. And since I can't enjoy it, I haven't done much gift buying or cookie baking, which also depresses me. 

Then there's the depression of thinking constantly about how depressing everything is for everyone else in the world. For people who are homeless, or lonely, or hungry. For people who have lost children and are suffering so much more than I have or ever will. The thought that they're depressed depresses me. 

The fact that the human brain is so complex and fragile that a minor deficiency of one or another chemical can fuck up your whole life depresses me. The capacity for human anguish in general depresses me, along with the fact that millions upon millions of people in the world are, at this very moment, suffering. That depresses me.

And it depresses me that my mind has been essentially hijacked. My personality, the very thing that makes me, well, "me"; that thing is temporarily on hiatus along with my ability to find comfort and joy in anything that usually gives me comfort and joy. That's gone for a little while. And guess what? That really, really depresses me. 

But I'm one of the lucky ones. This depression is only temporary. It's just the result of a medication change. The antidepressant I had been on for the last several years wasn't quite cutting it anymore, so I'm in the process of switching over to a new one. But in a week or two, when the new medication has reached its optimum effect, I know I'll feel better. I'm lucky enough to have health insurance, and the ability to pay for the medication I need. I have a husband who can take care of the kids when I just can't. I'm financially stable enough that this temporary situation won't ruin my life. But there are so many people out there that don't have all of the luxuries I have. And that depresses the hell out of me. And the fact that I'm laying here being depressed when I should be grateful for all of the things I have; that truly depresses me. 

But for now, all I can do is wait for my new medication to kick in, and hope that my children don't starve in the process.

I'm not writing this to get the typical "hang in there sweetie!" comments that one generally receives after posting something like this to a public forum. I don't need sympathy or attention. All I need is to let you know that when someone you know and love is suffering from depression, or any type of mental illness for that matter, they truly are suffering.

What I need is not to hear comments like "Why is <insert celebrity here> depressed?! They have nothing to be depressed about!" Or comments like, "I can't believe <insert celebrity here> killed himself. How selfish of him! I can't understand why anyone would do that!"  These types of comments further the misguided notion that depression is simply a character flaw to be "fixed" with the right balance of strength and positive affirmations. It is not. It is a heavy black coat that settles over you and refuses to lift without genuine, medical intervention.

Which brings me around to the relevance of this sort of post on a "liberal" blog. Imagine if everyone in America, regardless of their circumstances, had unlimited access to mental health care. Imagine the increase in productivity, the people now able to hold down a job who couldn't before. The children who now have healthy parents who are able to take care of them, leading to a lesser burden on child care resources. The families saved from the trauma of suicide. All of this could happen, if only we could get our priorities straight. If only we saw this as an issue more urgent than providing billionaires with even more money. If only.

But we don't. We choose to live in a system where the "haves" get to live healthy and comfortable lives, while the "have nots" are just shit out of luck. And you know what? That really fucking depresses me.

Bodily Autonomy

Abortion.

It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.

I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.


Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.

First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.

But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.


1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.

What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?

A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.

And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.

2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?

3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.

4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.

5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”

But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”

I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.

6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.

7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.

8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.

For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.

9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.

10. See point number 8.


The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.

It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue. 

There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.

But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.

Fact vs. Opinion

My 9-year-old son recently brought home a routine reading assignment in which he had to read a story and then answer some questions from the story.  He gets these almost every week, but this one caught my eye because the last question on the sheet was about the difference between "fact" and "opinion."  The story was about some animal helping another animal.  I can't remember what they were, but for the purposes of this retelling, we'll call them a squirrel and a frog.  The question was multiple choice and asked the student to pick out the "fact" amongst the "opinions."  The choices were along the lines of "the squirrel was nice to help the frog," "the squirrel shouldn't have helped the frog," and the "squirrel was bigger than the frog."  My son wanted to go with "the squirrel was nice" answer, so we had a discussion about what "facts" are and what "opinions" are.

I was glad this subject was even broached in today's modern third grade classroom, and wish more adults had to do the same kind of training.  It seems like we now live in a society where fact doesn't even really matter as long as you have opinion on your side.

For example, we know that abstinence only "education" is terribly useless, and does pretty much nothing to prevent sexual activity amongst teens, and therefore does not prevent teen pregnancy or the spreading of STI's.  How do we know this?  We've studied it. And yet, many people still insist that it should be taught because they are of the opinion that teen sex is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen.  But it's just not effective.  Fact vs. opinion.

We also know that evolution happened, and that the Earth is not, in fact, 6,000 years old, despite what the bible may have told you.  How do we know this? We've studied it. And yet, many people still hold the opinion that the bible is right, and that there is some sort of "controversy" we should be teaching kids about regarding evolution.

But my biggest problem with the juxtaposition of facts and opinion these days is in the political sphere. "Obama is a communist!" No, he's not.  That's an opinion based on your dislike of his policies, but it doesn't change the definition of communism and the fact that Obama's policy decisions don't support your belief. "Obamacare is a 'government takeover' of healthcare!" No, it's not. A true government takeover of healthcare would be a British-style national health service. But that's not what Obamacare does. You can dislike it all you want, but you can't claim the "government takeover" bit as a fact. Because it's not. End of story. Fact vs. opinion.

I think the political landscape would be very different if people could agree on which things are "facts" and which things simply are not.  We would still disagree on the "right" way to do things, because we would still have our differing "opinions," but maybe our conversations would be a lot less frustrating and more productive if we agreed to rely on actual evidence.

Gun Control

It's taken me awhile to write about the Newtown massacre, mainly because I'm a parent and I couldn't wrap my head around it.  But I figured that it's such an epic event that I should really come up with some kind of comment on it, so here goes.

We live in a country that makes the claim that "life is precious."  We seem to have no problem ensuring that laws are passed to prevent women from terminating pregnancies because the potential life in them is so "precious."  We go to sometimes ridiculous lengths to make sure that our children never get hurt on a playground or in a car or while riding a bike.

Yet it seems to me that all of this "caring" is just a facade of sorts.  Our own children are precious to us, but we allow other people's children to go hungry and go without healthcare, and all in the name of "personal responsibility."  We seem to have no problem letting other people's children suffer simply because we don't think their parents are trying hard enough.

So in this kind of atmosphere, how can we even begin to discuss reasonable gun control measures?  After all, the "right" to shoot off multiple rounds at targets is more important to liberty than the life of someone else's child.  I actually had one facebook friend content that these deaths are simply collateral damage; the price we pay for living in a free society.

There are guns in my house.  They are family heirlooms from my husband's family, and they are locked up tight in a heavy gun safe in the basement, where they are rarely, if ever removed.  Do I think we need to ban all guns? No. But do we need to take some kind of drastic action on gun law reform to try to prevent this from happening in the future?  Absolutely.  But I'm not convinced this country has the capacity for adult dialogue anymore.

We are the only industrialized country in the world with such a horrific gun violence problem.  Maybe we need to take a look around the world and see why other countries do so much better than us.  I have a feeling that access to guns is going to be at least part of the solution. Yes, it's the person who commits the crime, not the gun, but the gun makes it a whole lot easier and whole lot more lethal.

But until we make a decision to care about other people's children as much as we care about our own, nothing will change.  Until we collectively decide to put ourselves in the shoes of a parent who has to look at unopened Christmas presents for a child who's never coming home, this problem will not get better.  I wish I felt better about the situation, but I don't.  Not here.  Not in America.

Parent Teacher Trouble

Before I begin, a technical note: I will be referring to "Obamacare" in this post.  If that bothers you, sorry.  I know the proper name of the law, I'm just too lazy to type it all out, and I think Obama should be proud of his law and own it.

So I had a weird situation the other day.  I attended my first parent-teacher conference of the year with my son's third grade teacher, who is an amazing woman.  In the short time I've known her, I've found her to be kind, funny, warm and smart.  She's kind of a "grandma" figure to the kids, and my son just loves her.

As the conference began, she asked me about my impending surgery since we've discussed it on and off when I've been in the classroom volunteering.  The conversation came around to medical bills, and she said she's been worrying about me because my medical bills must huge.  At that point, I told her that one good thing about "Obamacare" was that it would end the lifetime cap on coverage which would be huge for me. She agreed but then asked what would happen if it got repealed.

I should interject here to say that I really hesitated to even bring up the issue, because around here, you kind of have to assume that everyone is conservative until proven otherwise.  So it was a subject I broached very tentatively.

Anyway, as the discussion continued, she told me she had heard that there is a provision in Obamacare that pays for all the children of illegal immigrants to go to college for free.

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I politely told her that seemed pretty unlikely to me, and asked her if maybe she was thinking of the "Dream Act" (which doesn't do that either, but I can see how the rumor could get around).  She insisted that no, it was in fact Obamacare, and that "we" (I'm assuming she and her husband?) had fact-checked it because they thought it sounded weird too.  I told her it still seemed fishy to me, and she asked me to let her know if I find out differently, at which point our time was about up, so I told her we should probably talk about my son (who, as it turns out, is an amazing, wonderfully kind and funny boy who really needs to work on his reading and math skills).

That night, I spent at least an hour googling and came across nothing, so I resorted to finding the entire text of the law and searching through it for keywords like "education," "immigrants," and "college" and still found nada.

The next day, I emailed the teacher letting her know what I had found (or rather not found).  I'm not sure how often she checks her email though, so I guess we'll see if she sends a response.

The point of this whole story is that even the most intelligent people can believe very unlikely things, and what that could mean for this election and for our future really kind of scares me.  We live in a world where facts aren't always facts, and you can just about always find somethting to back up what you want to believe, no matter what side of the fence you're sitting on.

Evil Advertising

Last night I was enjoying an old episode of "South Park" with my husband when a commercial came on attacking Rick Nolan, our Democratic candidate for Congress.  The ad said that Nolan is "extreme" and that he wants to get rid of Medicare.

Now I've met Rick Nolan several times.  In fact, I once sat next to him at an awards dinner and had a lovely conversation with him.  He's anything but extreme.  He's actually a genuinely nice guy who wants to make a real difference.

And I know for a fact that he doesn't want to get rid of Medicare.  In fact, it's the Republican party, and their candidate Chip Cravaack, who would like to dismantle social programs like Medicare, because they don't really think it's the government's job to help people. 

So I was more than a little perplexed by this commercial.  I finally figured it out when they got to the part about Nolan wanting a "European-style health program."  As we all know, anything European is bad, so this sinister guy is trying to get rid of your Medicare and replace it with something European?!  What a jerk!

Well, actually, that "European-style health program" is really called "single-payer healthcare" and it's something that many people, like myself, have been advocating for for a long time.  It's essentially Medicare, but for everyone, not just seniors.  Because seniors, in my opinion, are not the only people deserving of healthcare, and a single-payer healthcare system is really the only humane way to tackle our healthcare problems, as most of the rest of the civilized world has already figured out.

So this ad, put out by the "American Action Network" is deliberately lying about Nolan's stance.  Does he want to get rid of Medicare? No. If you take a quick trip to his website, http://nolanforcongress.org/, you'll find this quote, "Don’t turn Medicare into a voucher system for insurance companies, which will mean higher costs and less treatment." Does that sound like someone who wants to end Medicare?  He may have backed off on singe-payer, which upsets me, but he's definitely not about to get rid of Medicare.

Is this ad not only lying about Nolan's stance, but also essentially taking Chip Cravaack's desire to end Medicare and pinning it on Nolan?  Well, if you take a trip to Cravaack's website, you'll find. . . well . . . . nothing.  No info on his stance on any issue.  So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he falls into line with the Republican party and wants to end Medicare as we know it.

I know that all political ads tend to be a little misleading, so this whole thing doesn't really shock me, but the egregious LYING going on in this ad is really off the charts.  The American Action Network should be extremely ashamed of themselves.  Although sadly, I know that they aren't.

Education vs. Healthcare

As I was listening to news about the Chicago teachers' strike today, a seemingly obvious thought occurred to me.  Why do we accept, as a society, the idea that all people deserve at least a basic education, and support that idea with our tax dollars, but we refuse to accept the idea that all people deserve at least basic healthcare, and then support that with our tax dollars?

It's a no-brainer that public education in itself is a good idea, no matter how you feel about the current state of our schools.  At least we agree that we should have schools that are available to everyone at no cost, because we recognize that education is a right in America.  So why not make the leap to healthcare?

I would argue, fairly easily, that healthcare is more important than education.  I mean, you can't go to school when you're sick, right?

And we already extend this idea to the elderly.  We provide them with Medicare because we believe they have a right to have their health tended to.  So why not the rest of us?  Why are the elderly more important as human beings than everyone else?

It justs boggles my mind that we can appreciate how important education is, but not how important going to the doctor when you're sick is.  What is wrong with us?

The Healing of America

Yesterday, I wrote an entire rant on how awful people have become to each other in terms of providing healthcare to their fellow human beings.  I then gave myself 24 hours before posting it in order to cool off and revise it.  However, this morning on my way to work I heard about the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act, and a little bit of my faith in humanity returned to me.

I've never been a huge fan of "ObamaCare" (or Obama, for that matter), because I think it didn't go nearly far enough in providing healthcare for people who need it (which is all of us).  But I can appreciate that it at least got the healthcare conversation started, and it's at least a step in the right direction. 

What I can't understand is why we refuse to look at the healthcare systems around the world that are working and try to learn from them.  Our American exceptionalism keeps us from admitting that there are in fact countries in the world that do things much better than we do, and healthcare is one of them.  The best book I've read on this subject is "The Healing of America" by T.R. Reid.  It was a great look into some of the systems in other countries, and it weighs all of their pros and cons.  I sometimes think that if everyone in Congress were just forced to read this book, maybe things could change, but I know better than to hope for that.

So I guess I have mixed feelings today.  I'm happy for the gains we've made, meager as they are, but still impatient for the changes we really need that can't come soon enough for real people dealing with real illness.

Contraception Calamity

I spent a large part of last night folding laundry while watching various news commentary shows that discussed the awful comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding birth control.

In a nutshell, he said that if women expect to have the govenment subsidize their birth control, then they are basically being paid by the public to have sex and are, hence, prostitutes.  Further, they should post their sexual encounters on the web for taxpayers to enjoy since they paid for that sex.

Wow.

I just can't even wrap my mind around that one.

Not that I expect anything coherent or remotely sensible to come from Rush Limbaugh's mouth, but this seems kind of out there even for him.  Do we really need anymore proof that this whole birth control "discussion" we're having is a lot more about hatred of women's sexuality and a lot less about the dollars and cents of contraception?

We are being held hostage by a small minority of people who seem to believe that we should still be living in the days when women just kept their mouths shut and kept an aspirin between their knees.  Having religious faith is one thing, but insisting that others follow your particular faith is whole 'nother ball of wax.  If Muslims were insisting that no one should eat pork (or whatever it is Muslims don't eat), there would be hell to pay from the Christians.  Yet, they don't seem to understand that they are doing the exact same thing to the rest of us.

Let's get one thing straight: contraception is not a magic medicine that makes it ok for women to have endless sex with endless partners (although, if men do that it's ok).  Contraception is a basic part of healthcare that keeps women healthy and allows them to put off having children until they're ready, making for a healthier mom and a healthier child.  And reducing the number of abortions! What is their problem with this?  Their problem is that women are now able to have sex without being saddled with a child as a consequence.  They think that women should be punished for having sex, but men should not. 

Whether you like it or not, human beings (men AND women) are sexual creatures, and we can either deal with it responsibly like adults or stick our heads in the sand and wish it wasn't so.  Which option do you think is more productive?

In Which I Singlehandedly Fix the Nation's Economy.

Okay, I'm no economics expert. In fact, I still count on my fingers. Just yesterday, I bought 4 packs of spider pop-up toys that came 4 to a pack because I needed 12 for my son's daycare Halloween party (I was counting by 3's). So I'm the last person you would ever want to trust with your money.

However, I do think I have enough common sense to make some assessments about what would help us get out of this economic mess we're in.  With that disclaimer, here is my patented six part plan to fix the economy:

1. Legalize Marijuana
This one seems like a no-brainer to me.  By legalizing pot, we would reap the rewards of tax revenue, while eliminating the cost of law enforcement involved in pot-related cases.  "But wait!" you say.  "Won't everyone start smoking pot then?!"  No.  I personally would not become a stoner if pot was legalized tomorrow, nor would most people I know.  The people who are doing it now will keep doing it, and the people who aren't, won't.  I think this same argument applies to all illegal drugs, but we can stick with pot for now.

2. Legalize Prostitution
See my argument above and apply it to this.  Also, I think that prostitution is something that will always happen, and women would benefit from having it legalized.  They would get better access to healthcare and would be able to operate in a safer environment.

3. Tax Product Imports
If companies are going to ship all of our manufacturing jobs overseas, then we should give them a disincentive to do that by charging them to bring all those products back into the country.  Right?

4. Focus on "Green" Jobs
I think we could make up for some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the years by creating new "green" manufacturing jobs.  Solar panels, wind farms, etc.  I don't know a lot about this industry, so I won't go into detail, but it seems like it would work.

5. Medicare for All
Providing a single-payer insurance plan for all Americans would reduce the costs we are already paying for people who have no insurance and rack up large hospital bills for things that could have been caught early.  Think about it, everyone having coverage would mean everyone could go to the doctor and get their prescriptions and medical supplies.  What does this mean?  Higher demand for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, receptionists, nurse's aids, etc.  Sure, a lot of health insurance company employees would lose their jobs, but they could retrain for one of those new green or healthcare jobs.  Also, at least they'd have their medical costs covered while they were unemployed.

6. Taxation Fairness
Make the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rest of us do.  Seems only fair to me, and it would help us raise a ton of money to train people for all those new green and medical jobs we'll have.

Pretty soon, we'll all have a job and be able to buy stuff, which means more companies can sell stuff, which means more people have jobs, which means more people can buy stuff, etc., etc., etc.

Why don't I rule the world yet?

Let 'Em Die

With the whole Ron Paul "Let Him Die" brouhaha last week, I had really hoped that the morality of healthcare in America would start to get more attention in the media.  Sadly, I was wrong.

There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument.  For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?

Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day.  Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality.  So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.

Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain.  Yes, that happened. 
Here.
In America. 
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan.  Was his needless death moral?  Is that what Jesus would approve of?

My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting).  But he was right.  Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.

Being sick sucks.

I'm posting this from my hospital bed.  I'm so glad they have wifi in the hospital now, especially since their TV selection sucks.  For those of you who don't know, I'll give you a quick recap of why I'm currently sitting here.

I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease at 19.  It's an intestinal disease and if you want to know more about it, you can Google it - don't be lazy.  Anyway, no one knows what causes Crohn's although they've found that there is some sort of genetic component (my brother has it too, as do several of my cousins).  So really, there's not a whole lot you can do to prevent it.  I've had 3 surgeries so far, and have been hospitalized dozens of times over the years because what's left of my teeny-tiny intestines tend to get food stuck in them causing excrutiating pain that rivals that of childbirth.

Naturally, all of this makes me very sensitive to the way in which the current healthcare debate is being discussed.  When people talk about the "overuse" of healthcare, they're talking about me.  According to the tea party, I really should have done more to prevent this disease as a teenager.  I should also be doing more to shop around for the best value in doctors and hospitals.  I always find that argument laughable not only because when I'm in the throes of stabbing stomach pain I'm not thinking about how to get more bang for my buck, but also because I live in a small town.  There's one hospital.  Where else am I supposed to go?  Believe me, if there was another option I'd go for it, because I'm sick of staring at the crucifix on the wall every time I have to come here.  Sure, I could drive half an hour in any number of directions to go to a neighboring community's hospital, but again, when I'm in the throes of stomach pain, I just need to get to the hospital quickly.

The Republicans seem to think that health problems are a choice.  That I chose to be sick and chose to be away from my children for days at a time and chose to rack up thousands of dollars in healthcare costs all because of my stupid intestines.  Clearly, they've never dealt with a chronic illness before.