President speaking on education a threat?

Normally I would not consider education to be about politics. Well maybe when it's curriculum; but this time, it's as partisan as it comes which makes it
politics.

Sometimes I get angry at what I read in the papers. Sometimes I wish I didn't feel compelled to keep informed and would like to head into the woods and forget the whole thing (before I remember I live in the woods). Sometimes I just want to cry. This is the latter.

Obama School children Speech

Has the far right gone totally bonkers? Do they believe that the attitude of children toward education so wonderful that they don't need encouragement? If you don't have children or grandchildren in the schools, here's one take on the state of education today:

Can we have single payer education?

What is the hope for this country without solid public education? Is education to be the next threat thrown out from the far right regarding socialism and how everything is better when done for profit? They've been trying with trying to get vouchers to take money away from the public system.

How can anyone not see that our hope for the future is to see all children receiving the opportunity for good educations. The only reason I can imagine for people to think otherwise would be a desire to destroy the public system and make sure their children are being educated with their parents' ideas on religion and government. Children taught to think for themselves? Heaven forbid and I do mean heaven. Did anybody see anywhere that Jesus said there should be a public education system? Is it specifically in the Constitution? Point made!

So I can believe hysteria mongers might have another agenda but what about those parents with kids in public school today who did not want their children to hear a Presidential encouragement to work hard at the beginning of the new school year? It's not like this is a new thing for Obama to do. He's been speaking about the importance of education since I first heard anything from him.

What's up with those parents who just revealed themselves to being paranoid, selfish and unpatriotic, what is their fear at their children hearing a message directly from their president (yes, an elected president is the president of us all whether they voted for him or not)?

When Reagan gave such a speech directly to the schools it was even to sell his tax program. Did anybody complain? For heaven's sake, isn't it cool that a president wants to take time out to talk to kids about important issues? Newt Gingrich said it was a good thing; but then we know he thinks being educated is a plus, not a minus.

I am trying to understand what kind of parents would make a fuss over the president speaking to their kids about schooling. Oh, I forget. These are likely the same people who were proud they had a president who bragged at becoming president after a C average at university (don't need no stinking education-- at least not if you have a powerful daddy). They liked one who bragged he didn't bother reading newspapers and saw no reason to be widely informed. Damned liberals.

Just guessing, I'd imagine these parents also wanted/want Palin for President and proudly saw her as being one of them and a plus that she was ignorant about a lot of the world. A leader who promotes education as being important might seem threatening to such people.

Or can these parents barely stand the idea that the United States president is black and don't want their children reminded that white is not the only color that can excel? Don't want other black kids getting the idea that they could also be president?

What do they gain by making such a fuss? Maybe to have him not do it again? He might confuse their babies with his articulateness which is also not a good quality in a president. Are these the people who prefer phrases like kill grandma rather than explaining any programs in detail. Booorrrinnnggg! Maybe the children would compare Obama's speech to what they hear from their own parents. Even worse.

This is not a campaign. Obama is a legitimately elected president by the popular vote as well as electoral and all the wingnuts can do is figure out ways to de-legitimize him. Who gains with that? I shake my head as I literally cannot figure this out. What do these parents fear? Never mind, I don't even want to know.

Well I can make a good guess. They fear mind control. Obama is so powerful that if their kids just hear him speak, they will be turned into mind-numbed robots....

I wonder if they guard their children from seeing Fox news at night?

(Digital painting)

What are you reading?

This meme, in slightly differing formats, goes around every so often and is always interesting. The challenge is to find the book closest to you right now, where you are typing this, and open it to page 161, find the fifth sentence, and (as I understand it) put it in your blog. Then, if you wish, pass it onto five others, notifying them in their blogs through comments, to do the same. I received it from Peggy at Musings of Meggie.

The sentence for me is from Paulo Coelho's book Brida. It is a story of a young woman's search for magic and soul mate love. The sentence is: "She was sure that she would make very bad company." I actually had reviewed the book in May which is maybe why it's still on my desk shelf--Brida.

Sometimes when I get something like this, I do it but don't pass it onto anybody else. This will be an exception because I think it's interesting to know what others are reading and it's a way to advertise other blogs.

So the request (which feel free to ignore) goes out to:

Parapluie at Umbrella Painting Journal

Paul at Shadow of Diogenes

Fran at Sacred Ordinary

Ugich at gappa

Darlene at Darlene's Hodgepodge

and anyone else who would be willing to play the game.

Backdoor Relationships

For me, it's enjoyable to break the constant drumbeat of political thinking with some other issues out there-- sometimes fun or offbeat things. When I go looking for interesting articles, sometimes one catches my eye and then surprises me. Such a case was in this piece on Vanity Fair: What kind of men have affairs?

Although I am always interested in articles on human motivations, the fact that men and women have affairs wasn't the surprise. The thing that surprised me was a social networking site online just for the purposes of finding an affair partner. I knew there were sites for people to meet. Knew there were sites to meet specific categories like say beautiful people or millionaires; but this is one purely for those who want affairs and nothing more. It appears it was widely known, millions of members, and has been discussed on cable programs like The View. I didn't actually peruse the site (its name is in the article) because it would have required joining, but how did something that has been on CNN fly under or over my radar?

Incidentally, the article doesn't, in my opinion, answer the question of what kind of men-- other than, of course, not satisfied with something in their primary relationship and not wanting to end it. One of my friends, when I was discussing this, said why just men? Well because the woman writing it was having an affair with a married man but was not married herself.

The discussed site has a mostly male membership (that's not surprising) and a registered trademark-- Life is Short. Have an affair. Nothing poetic about that. This is not Jane Austen level prose.

Related to this, I recently watched a 1999 film version of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. The film had a bit more to do with men and women who have alternative ideas about monogamy than many of her books. The film is a mix of her book and Austen's own journals and writings.

Jane Austen experienced a life that began with material benefits but turned to poverty when her father died, with all of his wealth passing to his sons leaving his wife and daughters nothing except the sons' charity. What a time that was when women had so little value other than as male child producers.

Anyway in Mansfield Park there is a rake who the heroine, Fanny, recognizes for what he is and refuses to accept his proposal (she's also in love with someone else). Rakes are not unusual in Austen stories, but the interesting addition was a female rake (the man's sister) who would marry for money but also had a libertine's attitude toward marriage and relationships.

The film, besides taking some character liberties with the heroine, probably didn't do justice to the complexities of the characters because it was under 2 hours. I have decided all Jane Austen books need mini-series to explore the characters and plot complexities.

The film was depressing given the limitations so many people experienced in a world where there so few opportunties. People were more or less forced into patterns that their families had set. Then to make it worse, in Mansfield Park, the wealthy had gotten their benefits from slavery and terribly immoral attitudes toward other human beings. This was shown as exacting a price. The solidly moral people were rewarded in the end even if Austen herself knew no such happy ending to her own short life.

In 'What kind of men have affairs?' the author questions the belief that monogamy and true love are rewarded in the end. She proposes that affairs might help marriages keep going which otherwise might break apart-- obviously justifying her own actions or perhaps trying to be controversial and getting a book deal.

My question would be, material losses and small children aside, perhaps those marriages would be better if they did break apart for even the innocent partner. Is a person whose spouse is off having an affair really oblivious? Are they trading financial security for emotional sustenance? Would they be better off, emotionally at least, if the marriage ended and they found another partner more appreciative of who they were?

I don't really second guess the choices others make regarding affairs. To be honest, I don't see them as wrong or right; but where the problems start is with the required deception and lying. What does that do to a person's character? Austen's stories would suggest there is a price to be exacted. Personally I am not so sure. Books are easier to make tidy than life.

As usual, questions are easier for me to pose than answers. I ask the following one every so often but have yet to get answers that make sense to me. Is lifetime monogamy natural to humans? Is its expectation mostly based on religion? If it's not realistic for many people (obviously there are exceptions), what purpose does tying a couple together for a lifetime serve? I suspect there are more than a few second or even third marriages that finally hit the emotional jackpot but would never have existed with a lifetime commitment that stuck. Most Americans are pretty comfortable with serial monogamy but nothing else.

To add to the questions, how many people today get into affairs because the internet makes it so easy? Or does the internet just provide a safer conduit than the way things used to progress?

As I was trying to get a sharp photo of the red dragonfly, I saw two damselflies which appeared to be mating. They flew in unison from one spot to another. The single dragonfly and the damselflies seemed apropos illustrations when considering relationships-- or not.

Enlarge especially the first photo of the two damselflies for the faces. Very cute. The [Damselfly] link gives more information on them. If I'd hung around longer, it appears it'd have gotten even more interesting to photograph. Then again maybe they needed privacy from potential predators to get on with it. I had played paparazzi long enough.

Whose responsiblity is it?

Politics

David Brooks had a good column in the New York Times with suggestions for what Obama should do on health care reform. Brooks previously said he is against the public option (where I disagree with him) but this article has some good ideas for good changes without it.

Let's Get Fundamental

A lot of people have been duped and yes duped is the right word into supporting the medical system's growing part of the GDP out of a planted fear of socialism. They rally against any controls on private corporations managing their own health care. Legislators get quite a bit of money for their campaigns from these interests. Real reform has been derailed consistently in the past.

Read Brooks for what the stakes are now. If though we do not get real reform, it would be best for the health care bill to fail. In this case a partial bill could end up costing the government, making huge profits for the insurance companies, and eventually be so expensive that it cannot be maintained.

Farm Boss is scheduled for a routine medical test in a month that requires some prep work and a few supplies. When I had it under regular insurance, I was given a list to purchase and went to the drugstore. When he told the staff that he had supplemental insurance, they told him good, it's all fully covered.

Now we don't yet know what they will be billing our insurance company for those supplies, but it's very irritating that they will be sending it out instead of a list of what to buy. Who do you think profits from that? The actual cost was small when purchasing it yourself but how much you want to bet it's multiplied with this tidy package?

These are the horror stories I have heard over and over about Medicare itself where people find Medicare has a standard fee they allow and the charge is fixed to that fee rather than the actual cost of the equipment which might be a small percentage of the billing fee.

This is to some degree the responsibility of the patient. We don't have to just accept this kind of profit gouging but many don't look or know there are alternatives. When Farm Boss's mother was going to need an electric scooter, Medicare would rent it to her for a set fee per month. He could and did buy one for less than that first months' rent would have been. This is happening all across the United States.

Is anybody checking on these things? Does anybody care? Even Medicare patients should care because if they don't, the end result will be the system going bust. And if we end up with a public option, the need to be alert and pay attention won't go away.

Ignorance is rampant and it's not getting better

Politics

Where we are heading as a nation is something that gravely concerns me and that I think we all would be wise to take some time to consider, if not for our own sakes, for those of future generations. Clearly willful ignorance is rampant and proudly being embraced. The election of Barack Obama and the health care bill have only revealed it, but they aren't where it began.

Ignorance and being easily led are not just going to impact what we do about the growing health care problem but also the environment, education and pretty much anything we attempt to do as a united people. It's almost as though ignorance has become a virtue. Whoever tries to confront it is attacked with insults or worse.

For a certain segment of our population, facts are tossed aside if they didn't come from a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I suspect though that if Beck or Limbaugh changed what they are saying, this group would turn on them also. Media pundits like Sean Hannity are no longer, if they ever were, the masters of what is happening.

Too many people are not considering their own best interests where it comes to health care reform and are easily stirred into a frenzy by words like socialism (which has become a metaphor for evil). Do the ones who respond to that fear even know what socialism is? They sure didn't appear to understand what fascism was as they have embraced its early stages for the last 8 years.

From where did this ignorance come and what can those of us, who do stay informed and do think (from either political party), do about it? Here's one article offering a possible source of this thinking, but it really is not that simple to blame a few key leaders. The people who follow after these ideas are hearing what they want to hear. They often twist it to suit themselves. They glory in their ignorance and yet they are possibly beginning to set agendas.

Revenge of the Paultards

Ron Paul seems like a basically decent man, but what he said about the Federal government does not actually fit the Constitution. He's intelligent. He has to know that. The people hearing these ideas may not. The ones saying the federal government has no business being involved in health care (despite many of them benefiting from its involvement), do they know what is actually in the Constitution?

Paul followers claim that the Constitution only allows federal government to be involved in wars and commerce. Regulating insurance rates [which have gone from 1.5% of GDP (1970) to now 5.5% (2007)] could come under that category, right? They are wrong though that the Constitution doesn't cover more than commerce and wars. Senator McCain was booed in Phoenix when he said Obama understood the Constitution. How many of those booing did?

Since I recently reread the Constitution (thanks to a question by Paul from Shadow of Diogenes), I saw something else in the original document which makes a government concern for public health care a legitimate issue.

The first is in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In section 8 there also is this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

What are general welfare and domestic tranquility? The tea partiers, no taxes for anything, and no federal benefits at all, apparently would eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any federal welfare programs. Don't those things come under the category of general welfare or tranquility? I don't know how they would fund the wars they have often favored which the most recent ones haven't done anything for our general welfare or tranquility.

Those, who see the Constitution as an immutable truth that cannot be changed or should not be, ignore that at the time of the Constitution, women had no vote, freed blacks could only have partial votes and there was still slavery and indentured servitude. The Constitution is being used by a group of people as though they know what it says. Like so much else, they don't.

Photos taken by Farm Boss the last week of August when we had our grandchildren here for a farm week. That night we had gone out to dinner at a place called Gathering Together Farm. It sells produce but now does have a seasonally operated restaurant. It was a delightful evening with our daughter-in-law (her idea), son, their two sons and our other two grandchildren. The lush, colorful flower garden inspired me to enlarge a fenced space to have a larger one of my own next summer.

astrology to check out

Lynda Hill put out her astrological take on this period where we are soon to go into another Mercury retrograde. For those interested in astrology, check out: Lynda Hill's newsletter for September. This could be an interesting month with some positive opportunities.

If more follows from her or other psychics, I will post them there with a link here. Although I have done some natal charts for people, I am not one who really understands astrology, but I am usually interested in what's going on with the planets. Sometimes I do feel the impact, whether I knew it was coming or not, and other times, it flies by with no awareness. Astrologers would say that our natal sign will determine how much we are impacted each time.

Rune reading applied

The great holy man, Black Elk, said, "I cured with the power that came through me. Of course, it was not I who cured. It was the power from the outer world, and the visions and ceremonies had only made me like a hole through which the power could come to the two-leggeds. If I thought I was doing it myself, the hole would close up and no power could come through. Then everything I could do would be foolish."

from 'Fools Crow Wisdom and Power' by Thomas Mails

When I wrote about my rune reading in [Keeping My Eye on the Ball], I hadn't expected I'd be writing on it again. Something happened to change my mind. I see it as a third piece falling into place.

As I wrote a few days ago, I had a commenter, new to my blog, leave behind an encouragement to not give up on my dream. That was very nice, but at first didn't seem to be more than that.

Then there was the offering of a free rune reading. I didn't think I had a reason I needed to have one, but when I am offered something, I do stop to think should I open that door? Although the rune reading came from a friend, Cynthia, she is not someone I had talked to in awhile; so I am not sure what inspired her to offer it to her whole email list.

It was not until I lay in bed one morning, puzzling over a personal problem, which had just arisen again, that I put those first two together. I won't go into what my problem involved because that is not the important part. It had, however, been a hindrance in achieving my dream. Then I realized the rune reading was a tool to use in the problem and for that matter in any future decision making.

Does it seem obvious to you that when we have to decide what to do our JOY (first rune stone) should be taken into consideration? So often there are things I feel I just have to do. I don't stop to think-- will that bring me joy. Often, duty can bring joy, but what if it doesn't? Is duty with no resultant joy a good thing? Is joy something we can make happen when we take it into account?

The challenge from the runes was to look at how the problem being resolved, or any decision I might make, would contribute to my overall feeling of empowerment, self-reliance, of WHOLENESS (second stone)? If what I am thinking of doing or being asked to do isn't going to do that, why am I doing it?

To decide what makes me whole requires knowing my SELF (third stone) and that consideration is not always so easy, as I, and maybe many of us, do things for others and forget what it was we needed for our own self. Asking who we are is probably beneficial every so often. It does change with age, with experiences. You'd think by nearly 66 that I'd have worked that out permanently, but I have not.

Finally comes the last stone and the one related to the overall-- STRENGTH. I can see how wisely resolving my problem would make me feel more joy, wholeness, sense of self, but strength? Well I guess when we make wise choices, we do grow stronger. Or is it that my ability to resolve this thing will come through seeking strength? I am not sure.

The strength stone is the only one that I really have to question exactly how it applies. Cynthia, who knows me, had suggested that my strength could come through my creativity. Perhaps it's in using creativity that I will find the strength to deal with the returned problem and attain my dream?

At any rate, I felt that this coming to me, all three things in August, all seemingly unconnected and from different sources, suddenly all relating, were something more-- indicators that I am not really in this alone-- serendipity, coincidence, synchronicity, call it what you will-- I received help from outside myself.

At one time I'd have said the help was coming from god. Now I don't know what brought it together, but I appreciate its happening as it did: The encouragement from a stranger to not give up on my dream, a friend giving me the tools to use where it came to a choice I didn't even know I would have to make at that time, all led to dealing with something which has been standing in my way. Incidentally, that doesn't mean the problem represents a bad thing (if it had, it'd have been easier to deal with), but just one that wasn't moving me toward what I have said I want. Those things came to me opportunely at the least.

One of my favorite quotes is the one above from the book Fools Crow, a book I bought many years ago and remembered especially that quote. I have often sought to be that hollow bone but sometimes have not been sure what is flowing through me. Am I being used or kidding myself? Was the help I just received from other hollow bones where energy flowed to me from the great mystery?

(Photos are from the Portland Zoo where I was last week with my four grandchildren, Farm Boss, and our daughter-in-law. Very very fun day with many families, literally all ages, enjoying the same thing! It definitely qualified as an activity to satisfy all four rune stones.)

The creek in late summer

Although I call where I live a farm, in reality, it is a small ranch as it only raises livestock. Living on ranches has its ups and downs. You see life and death much closer than most. The work never takes a vacation and some of it is for no monetary reward. I like the life or wouldn't have lived this way most of my life. Pretty much my only years off a farm were spent trying to get back to one even though I know well that it has joy and heartbreak wrapped up together.


The creek, which winds along one border to our property, is, on the other hand, a constant delight. Oh it has some problems when it floods and it definitely is hard on fences, but I appreciate everything about it. It is a blessing to live on a creek.

There is that coolness which makes air conditioning generally not needed at night. I like wading in it, checking on its creatures through the signs they leave behind, like beaver gnawed trees, raccoon paw prints, checking the mussel and crawdad populations. Ours has been fished but mostly has only guppy-sized fish. The flow in it is constant year round but it's not very deep. It provides the irrigation water for our pastures.


Last week-end we waded it, planning a route to take us from one of our gates to another. the creek had other ideas. It turned out there was a big log jam blocking our passage. It was washed there in the last floods and will likely be moved downstream in the next ones.


To inspect the whole creek, we had to wade up, back down, then go to the upper gate, enter and wade both ways. Our survey took twice as long as usual.


Part of our motivation of doing a thorough inspection was to be sure the calf we lost this year hadn't drowned. If it had, the bones would have been in that log jam or along the bank. They weren't. Whatever got that calf took it clear off the place. Whether the predator was human or animal, we likely will never know for sure.


I am along the creek pretty often but only wade its length along our property a few times during the summer. I knew when we bought it that living on a creek would be a gift and it has been over and over.

Jane Austen as an antidote to today's craziness?

Sometimes things come along into my life and absolutely I can't figure out how it started, but with our recent Jane Austen film festival, I know exactly where it began with a DVD called The Jane Austen Bookclub.

The movie had a good cast and followed five women and one man as they met each month to discuss one of Jane Austen's six books. Through their problems and personalities they each illustrated one of the characters in each of the books.

To be honest I wasn't really a Jane Austen fan until I saw that film. Then I got curious. How much really was in those books? I had seen Pride and Prejudice when it was Sir Lawrence Olivier and Greer Garson but it didn't really impress me all that much. I was far more taken with Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights or Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre. Somehow Mr. Darcy didn't catch my interest until now.

When I began I really hadn't intended to watch that much Jane Austen. I had the A&E version in 1995 starring Colin Firth and from it an addiction grew.

The 1995 version was so compelling that we watched that all in one Sunday. Our plan was to break it up but neither of us wanted to do that once we started. Two 150 minute DVDs of Pride and Prejudice might seem a lot but not with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Frankly he has to be the standard by which any other Mr. Darcy will forever be compared. That scene where he strides up to Pemberley after swimming full clothed in his lake, oh my. The film was just too good to quit part way.

The BBC version was also quite good but not as mesmerizing as the 1995 one. It was probably a week or so later that we watched it over several days. I think I liked its Elizabeth Bennett the best. It also might be the most closely tied to the book. Many of the relationships seemed to me to be more clearly defined. It was, as they all were, very colorful, beautifully photographed, lovely little grace notes.

The 2005 movie, at 129 minutes had the biggest problem with that short of a time. How do you possibly get all of it in? the answer is you cannot which is bound to displease purists. Keira Knightly was a spirited Miss Bennett but really the time worked against it being my favorite version. Besides although its Mr. Darcy was very attractive, he wasn't Colin Firth!

Does that seem like too much Jane Austen? Well it didn't to me and surprisingly Farm Boss was as into it all as I was. We then ordered from Netflix Becoming Jane (supposedly biographical about Jane Austen herself and how she got started writing); Persuasion and have yet to see Mansfield Park but it's coming in a week or so.

During this time, by happenstance on cable, I stumbled across Lost in Austen about a young woman from modern England, a huge fan of the book, being time traveled back to Pride and Prejudice with all the characters except Elizabeth who had come to modern England. It was also several episodes but cable showed them all in a day. Yes, I watched them all.

Have I had enough Jane Austen? Actually not and am now reading the books. Some I never had read. I am not sure why her stories have suddenly been so good for me. I think there might be several reasons. Of course, the plots and characters are great. I mean the love story of Elizabeth and Darcy is a mix of mistaken ideas, duty, and love.

The Austen books all serve to remind me that things can and have been worse culturally. Yes, there was a grace in the England of the early 1800s but the opportunities were far less than we have today. To me, it was a reminder throughout of how few jobs people had, how little chance, particularly for women, to do other than marry appropriately. The last thing we should want to do is revert-- although it's fun for a short period of time.

Summer of Oddities

Politics

Watch out for those emails that seem to be in all of our mailboxes. Sometimes I get them from a friend asking me what I think. Too often instead it's just passed it on as fact. My opinion is double check it all and from any blog site-- including this one. We are living in a time where more information can be disseminated faster than at any time in history. Frequently we have no idea where it originated and without a lot of research, cannot decide on its truth.

Worse once these emails circulate, the blogosphere picks them up and they begin to be presented as valid as any newspaper report. In ninety-nine out of one hundred, you have no idea who even wrote them although they often use a celebrity's name.

Once upon a time, you'd know what your local community knew and maybe not much more. Today you know what every local community knows and sometimes it is nothing but wishes.

One of the stranger things that happened this summer was comparing Obama to Hitler. The right wing spouted it out and the left was forced to deny-- always easier to say something than to prove it but proof is not required when people want to believe something.

Basically at first it seemed just strange but typical rhetoric until they began to add 'facts' to it. Like that Obama wanted to kill old people. That became that it would be like the Nazis where he would also kill anybody he deemed unfit like say retarded citizens. Since some right wingers said he hated whites, maybe all whites except those he turned into slaves. The talk was unbelievably crazy to most of us but to some it worked.

The most interesting part of all is when we began to find out from where these accusations had arisen.

Behind the Obama Hitler Slur or Summertime for Hitler

Until this summer, who took Lyndon LaRouche seriously about anything? He had been pushed as far from the Democratic party as they could push, discredited by the mainstream media, and most citizens saw him as an extremist.

That's evidently no longer so for many Republicans as his accusation, about Obama's health care plan being like the Nazi's, was picked up by the media and with enthusiasm by some in the right wing, a party which, for far too often, the fear card has worked to extend their power.

So this summer, when Republicans would shake their head and deny comparing Obama to Hilter made sense, they'd add-- as far as I know.

How do you get from left wing nuts to right wing mainstream? Interesting question but the only possible answer is some in the Republican party don't care what they use, and extremists on either side have more in common with each other than any moderate of either party in the middle. For the moderate Republican politicians, like say John McCain, to say Obama respects our Constitution or is not a Nazi is to find themselves being booed in places like Sun City, Arizona (retirement community).

I hear the right wing has ideas for the problems we face, but has anyone heard what they are? Instead we are bombarded by birthers, tea-partiers, accusations of socialism, and on it goes. Anything to scare the American people-- even if it takes hooking up with Lyndon LaRouche. Amazing, isn't it!

Keeping my eye on the ball

I don't know about you, but in my life, there are so many distractions that sometimes I lose track of where I am going-- long term-- or even where I want to go. I wrote this blog in January-- [Finding a Dream] and although it's been in the back of my mind, I haven't been working actively on it.

Then I got a comment to that blog from someone who had found their dream and wrote to encourage me on my own. Isn't that great that strangers can do that for each other in so many different ways but especially with blogs? Every so often I get a comment on an older blog and always appreciate knowing that the words are still out there and being found.

At the same time the comment came, I have been seeing other examples of people who have had dreams, temporarily them lost, but now are getting them. It has made me look at my own again (written down in January 2000) and see what it will take to get, if not all of it, at least some. I will say that over 9 years later, my dream hasn't changed for what I would want. Now is it really possible, that's more debatable-- still gotta think positive, right?

Two weeks ago, a friend of mine, Cynthia Tierra, whom I met in Tucson before she moved to Sedona, gifted a free rune reading to people on her email list. Cynthia, who taught me reiki, had done a rune reading for me at a Tucson psychic fair several years ago, but this one was of necessity over the phone.

Runes are symbols carved or written on wood or stone. They are an ancient alphabet but when used for intuitive readings, they have a contemporary meaning. Although I do have Tarot decks, I have never gotten into casting runes myself and that's partly because of my confusion regarding how you read them. There are 24 symbols and from what I have seen, they can vary in their meanings depending on the reader.

After this reading, I am thinking maybe I will try again with my own set of runes. I favor getting mine on stones but it would be possible on wood. I am guessing that like Tarot you have to find the ones that suit your inner voice. I could find stones and make my own and that has some appeal as the symbols are very cool.

From what I have seen of runes, and I am by far no expert, they are kept in a small sack. The reader will draw out one small stone at a time with several common patterns.

In the case of my reading, I hadn't asked a question. The reading followed Cynthia's format and basically was to help me with first an overview of my current situation-- which was to look at what brings me JOY.

The second stone was to define my challenge: WHOLENESS, getting to a place of self-reliance.

The third was what action must I take? Basically that one meant to figure out what my SELF wanted, needed, desired, and knew.

Finally came the overall view: STRENGTH. That I need to find strength and that might come through creativity.

I feel the rune reading, like most good psychic readings, fit pretty well with what I know about myself right now and was related to the blog commenter who reminded me to not give up on my dream.

Computer art is mine as are the footprints in the sand. The path above is the sheep's. They often (as you can tell) take the same path when going somewhere. In a way the solitary footprints and the path made by many going the same way illustrate two different ways to find our way. Follow the path of others or find our own-- that is the challenge.

The Art of Aging

I really love books about using art to express what is meaningful in a life. One famous example of this was Frida Kahlo, who basically captured her emotions in very picturesque paintings. There are many lesser known artists who painted their experiences as a way of dealing with their lives.

The following video shows how two artists, husband and wife, Richard and Alice Matzkin, used their creativity to express where they were in their lives. Their paintings evolved into a book.

This video on their philosophy, The Art of Aging particularly was enjoyable to me. I found it on a site for elder women called Crones Net which is a private site but open to elder women (or those soon to be elders) through its creator, Marian Van Eyk McCain, who also has published books on the subject of growing old. If you are interested in more information on Crones Net, you will find it at: About Elder Women Space.

My gun and me

Politics with a mix of farm life

At the risk of losing my reputation as a card-carrying leftie, I always come up against a few issues where I side with conservatives-- mostly. One of them is the right to own a gun, the right, under certain circumstances (classes and background checks) to have a concealed weapon permit. I break with them on the right to own an assault rifle-- and really break with them on allowing guns to be carried on the hip into town. Didn't we decide in the Old West that that wasn't a wise thing to do?

As so often happens to me, I have a mix of beliefs that don't comfortably put me in either camp and gun rights is one of those. I am very comfortable knowing that when I go to town some people, who have been screened, might be carrying a gun in a shoulder holster or in their purse. I won't be one of them though.

To me concealed weapon permits make excellent sense, especially in an era where we have nutcases taking on a grudge against the world because they didn't get the date they wanted in high school and setting out to kill a lot of innocent people before they do themselves in. I am not sure where this all started but it's sure with us today. Having a few armed citizens who have taken training, know how to use a gun, and have it with them, could potentially be good. A concealed weapon is not a provocation and nobody should have one who isn't ready to use it.

My first gun came when I was 12 and I asked for it as a Christmas present. It kind of amazes me now when I realize my granddaughter will be 11 this year and would I see her having a .22 next year? Well her life situation is different than mine was.

I grew up on the edge of wilderness, last house on a dead-end road with 80 acres to play and enjoy. I think I have always sought to duplicate that life and never have as such places are harder to come by for ordinary folks today. When my parents bought that farm, Mom was stay-at-home mom (as I later was when I had my children) and Dad worked as a laboring man at various jobs that used muscle. You know there wasn't a lot of spare money, but the farm was their dream and they got it. When they had to sell it, it broke my heart.

They never found farming a money making proposition as they tried raising various livestock. The ones that led to my first gun were the sheep. I grew up seeing sheep torn apart by dogs but still alive with maggots in the wounds. I wanted to see those sheep protected, and a .22 was my contribution to doing that. I would walk around the property and feel that if I saw anything attacking the sheep, I'd shoot them. I do the same thing today.

My dad taught me to care for my gun, to handle it safely and even today I am cautious with it after all these many years of handling it. To me a gun is a tool to protect what I love. My gun happens to also have beautiful lines, but I don't carry it joyfully. Heck, since Farm Boss added the scope, my .22 is heavy. I have to admit scopes are handy to use in shooting but they do weigh enough that when I walk out to the barn with my gun, I switch which side I am carrying it on and how I carry it. The one thing I never do is point it at anybody; and when walking, even if it's ready to use, I don't keep my finger on the trigger.

This summer I have been carrying that rifle a lot more because of the coyote attacks. In the last few months, we have had three lambs killed by coyotes, one badly hurt (slashes to the neck) that might not make it.

One night Farm Boss had the spotlight, rifle, and his shoes ready. Luckily so as we were awakened about 1:30 with the cows making a racket. We have one cow who can bellow in a way that breaks your heart. It always sounds like something awful happened. That night she was loudly terrified and angry.

Farm Boss got out there as fast as he could to see a coyote trying to get into the inner sheep pasture where we keep them at night. He got off three shots but missed. Coyotes are very good at broken-field running. Bullets whizzing past might dissuade it for awhile, but you know it has pups to feed, sheep are easy kills, and it will be back.

One of the lambs it killed, it only removed the liver and what it could carry back to its pups. I understand its needs but I have some too, and it's to protect these sheep. Other than us, running is a sheep's only defense. One thing I will say is that generally coyotes kill fast and effectively unlike people's pet dogs. From the wounds, it's easy to tell which animal was the attacker.

Even though I have the concealed weapon permit, I rarely carry a gun off this place except for hiking in the hills above us. I have several reasons to not carry. One is a very small purse which I also don't carry more than I must (men have the right idea on how to carry wallets and keys).

I have another reason though. The class I took on using a gun made the point, don't pull a gun ever as a threat. Only show it if you are prepared to use it. In my house, I will know someone who wasn't invited, is a threat; but out in public, how would I know until they started shooting? I think in public it'd be easier to get myself in trouble with a gun than without it.

Some say if they took away all the guns, our country would be safer. They are usually people afraid of guns, and I don't blame them for the fear. A gun is definitely a weapon that can be misused or even turned against its owner if it is improperly used.

In my opinion, you will never see all citizens giving up their guns. The ones who want to obey the law, yes, but the others, no. So I'd rather see gun safety taught, people encouraged to learn to use a gun if they are comfortable with that; and if not, leave it to those who are.

Guns at Town Halls?

Clearly Politics

As a big adjunct to the health care debate, surprisingly another issue has arisen-- guns in public places. Why would someone wear a gun on their hip at a public meeting-- most especially an AK-47? They expect they might have to shoot someone? They fear someone might try to shoot them? They have a problem with self-worth and a gun makes them feel important? They want to intimidate others?

Our country was born in violence and the use of weapons has been a major part of its history with more than a few presidents shot at or even killed by a mad citizen with a gun. There is a kind of weird pride that many Americans feel at that violent history. Huge arguments arise regarding the exact meaning of the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Fear of sex in a television show trumps any fear of violence. Sometimes violent solutions to disagreements seem to be praised.

It is obvious nobody needs an assault rifle at a town hall meeting. A gun is not a toy. It's not an ego enhancer. It's a tool to kill, and it should never be carried or used lightly. Anyone who would swagger around with one has a problem that already has me worried.

This whole debate has revealed a nastiness in our people that, even at my age, has amazed me especially if it's really about medical care. Listening to Republican lawmakers justify the orneriness, the carrying of guns into public meetings, doesn't make me think they deserve leadership again ever. I don't know what has gone wrong in our country. Some people say it's the most rage they have ever seen.

Well, it's not if you are old enough. Trying to end segregation, trying to get Civil Rights for all Americans, that led to not only rage but murders, and my fear is this could also. The Vietnam War also led to violent demonstrations.

Whatever else our democracy should have learned from the many violent events in our past is you can't let mobs rule, but we are being threatened in this nation by a revolt of a physical nature because a certain group of citizens don't like who we elected president.

All it Lacks is a Spark-- Officials see rise in militia groups across US.

I am sure a few of you think, wow, great idea. Well think again. When Timothy McVey bombed the Oklahoma federal building, he didn't care who was inside or what political persuasion they had followed. He killed small children because he had a greater agenda. When militias turn violent, they are homegrown terrorists, the kind Homeland Security was forced to back down from warning were becoming a potential risk. If you read the above link and a lot more like it in the news, you see the warning was right-on.

Basically when the killer (and others like him) walked into the Omaha mall in 2007, he used an AK-47. I gather that those who defend gun rights feel he had every right to swagger around the mall up until the moment he would have opened fire?

On MSNBC, I heard a gun rights advocate defending just that. He was asked what about Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. He said he would have shot him. He was asked how he would have known before Oswald opened fire. The guy had no answer because allowing people to walk around with weapons and wait until they fire is suicidal. If you openly allow them to carry the weapons in a state ready to use, then you can't do anything until they do fire. To me political gatherings of any sort are the kind where I think guns should be banned, and it looks like using metal detectors upon entering is needed.

As I have mentioned before in this blog, I have a concealed weapon permit which I keep up to date. As I type this, I know exactly where my .357 is located and make sure it's loaded except when the grandchildren come to visit. I also frequently carry a rifle out to the fields, but neither are part of some macho display. They are for self defense or a predator attack on my livestock.

What concerns me personally about this open carrying of AK-47s into Town Hall events, is the backlash to which it might lead from people already afraid of any gun use. Misuse of weapons could turn a right to carry into a lot of laws banning any ownership or carrying.

To me the disgusting swaggerers, who delighted in getting their photos taken at the town hall events, they don't care if the laws change. They will not give up their guns or be law-abiding if that should happen. It will only impact people who want to obey laws and who are not planning to use their guns against anyone who isn't invading their homes, businesses or otherwise threatening their property or lives.

My feeling is these gun-carrying men (and mostly they have been men), to deal with what appears to be their insecurity, should consider getting some of that product I see in emails and advertised on TV to increase the size of their-- you know what I mean.

I was at the beach last week. The sky and sea were rather gray but the coolness was welcome after the heat in the valley. Lighthouses make a great symbolism for this topic.

Health Care Reform question for naysayers

Politics

Okay, so you are one of those who wants nothing done about health care reform. You aren't a Republican Representative or Senator because they say we do need to do something but they haven't yet said what that might be. Well actually they have said that no plan should pass today without 80% of the Senators voting for it. It's gone from needing 51% to 60% and now the bar got raised even farther (too bad they didn't follow that one when they signed up for the tax cuts on the richest or the Iraqi war which are both still causing our budget so much trouble) Anyway, you are however one who thinks the current medical system is just fine; so what do you think about:

Insurance companies wanting 35% profits?

62% of the bankruptcies that were filed in 2007 were health care related okay with you?

What about denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions like say cancer or high blood pressure?

Here's another one that was brought up in comments but I haven't heard much about in the public discussion. Too many physicians go into specialties that could make them big money, like say surgeons, but they don't want to go into general practice anymore or geriatric specialties because there isn't as much money in it. Should the government have a say in this since most doctors receive some help to get their education? Socialized medicine? When all you can pick from are specialists, will you consider that a problem?

If you think government intervention in health care is always bad, would you refuse to take the government's help if you lost your job and they offered (as they do under the Stimulus Bill) to pay 2/3 of the premium for Cobra? Is that socialized medicine?

Is the medical help Veterans receive socialized medicine? If not, why not? How about the elderly with Medicare?

Have you ever actually looked into how people feel about their coverage in those countries with medical care underwritten in some way by the government?

Where do you get most of your insurance reform information?

Those questions were to make you think, but my actual question is if you believe anything at all needs to be done, what would it be?

I know the Republican politicians have a plan. It's do nothing about this and cause Obama to lose popularity enough that they see our next president be Sarah Palin (their current favorite by a large margin to run for president) or maybe Tim Pawlenty who believes in creationism which means god has his finger in every pie. No problem is too big for his god.

These politicians in the Congress believe, egged on by the media, that there is blood on the water and like all good sharks, they are circling. The problems of American people with medical care isn't as important as making Obama lose the next election and getting a Republican majority in the House and Senate in 2010. They definitely have a plan all right. They want more of the eight glorious years they had under Bush the little.

Is that your plan also? Bring about Obama's loss as a way to get him out of office and forget the American people who are either under or un-insured? If that is so, I would bet you are currently insured and worried more about buying your next boat than how to pay for your kid's appendectomy. If I am wrong, please tell me what the country should be doing about the issues I raised above while keeping in mind that at the rate medical costs are rising, most Americans will have to pay 50% of their income for medical care. Most of you just don't know the true cost of what those costs are today because your employer has been paying it. When that stops, you will learn.

Writing about health care-- again

Politics Ahead

Writing about the health care bill has to be one of the more frustrating things I do around here. I know the facts are out there as to what is proposed but again and again hear people say that nobody knows what it is. Yes, a firm bill is not passed, but the proposed one is there to read. I hear lies repeated about what is in that, but you can't get many people to look beyond Fox News for their information.

In the spring, I favored government-run, universal health insurance which would cut out the for-profit insurance companies from primary care (stock market would drop like a rock), letting them offer supplemental packages (as with Medicare). I still believe that would be best. It'd take awhile to get it done right but in the end, it's the best hope for a fair and balanced program. Given the total paranoia expressed at the very thought of even a public option, it is dead in the water.

Yes, I have heard the arguments. The government couldn't work it right. How does the government manage for Medicare, Veterans and the Congressional health program?

I also thought we could afford to take time to form a health care package to be sure it was the best possible. I still think that would have been wisest, but it's also not how it's going to be-- because of politics.

On her MSNBC news program, Rachel Maddow did a cute analogy of what we face. She and a work friend decided to order pizzas for the group. Both agreed that they wanted pizza. She picked up the phone and asked, okay with sausage? No. With pepperoni? No. With mushrooms? No. No. No. You get the idea. He said he wanted it but every single thing, which goes with pizza, he refused.

That is what we are hearing from Republicans with health care. Democratic leadership needs to face the truth. On this issue, bipartisanship is dead in the water. No matter how the Democrats try to compromise, the Republicans will not vote for ANY health care reform. How do you compromise on insurance companies that need 35% profits?

And also from what I read, Democrats will have enough trouble getting all their Democrats to vote for it. So Obama and Democratic leadership needs to go for what they believe is best, put pressure on those in their party and forget Republicans. Republicans see this as a way to get back power.

Republicans and right wing Democrats might defeat the eventual proposals, but that is better than a worthless bill that passes and makes the whole situation worse through no cost controls and forcing everyone into the pot. When that fails, and it will based on rising costs, guess who will take the blame? Better we lose right now than to let something damaging get past us in the name of bipartisanship.

More time to get this exactly as we want it is not there. Much as I dislike the idea, if we don't get a bill out there in the fall, I am not sure we will get another chance. I believe this for several reasons.

First is because the next Congressional election is coming fast. If Obama loses his majority in the Senate or House, we can kiss off any change. I don't really know what the odds are for a Republican recovery, but I can see reason for concern given the history of voting in this country. Republicans think denying un- or under-insured Americans health care (except in ERs) is their ticket back to power. They are riding that horse as far as it'll take them.

Second, if the nutty right can build up this much rage over offering everyone a chance to be covered for basic health care, they won't let up and it will only get worse. So I favor getting what we can and getting it signed.

There are a lot of problems though with having that package not include a viable public option. It's not too late to make our voices heard on this issue. It is important to let Congress know how we feel.

Bob Herbert expressed my concerns well regarding the public option-- [This is Reform?] Without the public option, the 'reform' will be a bonanza for the insurance providers. (I had another term I intended to use here but fortunately looked up to be sure I had its meaning exactly right. Turns out its primary meaning had changed since I was a girl. Eek!)

A public option is one way to get control over costs. Without it, don't we have to trust the same companies whose profits have risen so astronomically. Do we expect the leopard to change its spots? Why?

Here is, however, another take on the public option-- [It's time to give up on the public option]. This whole thing is nothing if not confusing.

It's true, if we could get medical systems to control costs, it might be possible that the public option wouldn't be needed. Although, if this was only about run away medical costs, how do the insurance companies reap those huge profits? To me asking them to be more responsible is pie in the sky thinking. Drug companies say they need the higher prices to do research. If that was so, they also wouldn't have the profits as they'd all be plowed back into research. They are lying as usual.

So bottom-line, I favor health insurance reform now even if we can't get the whole package. I recognize (based on what I read from the Obama proposals) that might end up costing me, as a Medicare recipient, a bit more money, but it's what is fair and best for our whole nation that we get control of a run away health care system.

If we don't get a handle on health care costs, Medicare premiums or denial of care will go up anyway. The rising costs will require something happening with or without meaningful change in how we manage health care in this country. We cannot have the decision on health care decided by those who choose to be ignorant or are tools of the corporate interests( pharma and the multiple layers of insurance) who have been profiting mightily from things as they are.

Yes a lot of Americans are now afraid of health care reform, even those who worry about their insurance if they are laid off, but who are the loudest ones, the ones who have been instrumental in denying the rest of us meaningful reform?

Inside Stories on Town Hall Riots

Town Halls

The ones making it onto YouTube or on the news illustrate how ignorant they are of the facts, but boy are they loud. They don't like government care but warn don't touch their Medicare. They worry about government making choices on who gets help with medical expenses, but they don't worry that insurance companies already do that.

In any HMO today you cannot go to a specialist without prior approval unless you are paying for it yourself. You can only receive covered second opinions from those who are in the same insurance package. What makes some Americans believe that insurance companies care more about them than the government? Where is the evidence for that? Our current system? You jest.

This concept of fearing government intervention amazes me. Let's just think about what government is-- people. What was insurance-- that is before the profit motive took over? It was one person helping another. That's what people forget. We pay our premium which covers someone else's needs and someday it might be us needing it.
Government could let doctors make choices that today are made by insurance bean counters...maybe.

David Letterman (on many right wing blogger's enemy list) should do a Top Ten lies about health care reform. Maybe he has. Anyway here are some valuable links. It is important that as many people as possible be informed to tell others the truth about our current system and the proposed changes:

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies

Fact Check.Org on the health care lies

Who are the uninsured?

The truth about Stephen Hawking's treatment in the UK

The View from your Sickbed

Questions and Answers from White House on health care changes

Nate Silver's take on Life After Death of Public Option

We have been given the opinion that elders are most afraid of health care reform. Ronni Bennett from Time Goes By decided to make August 20th a day for elders to write about it again and she would post their links on her blog. Here is the URL for their opinions on health care reform.

It's elders for health care reform day

Okay, this last one is not exactly significant information about health care but what it is for me is a good smile after all the negativity this last week of people insulting Obama and generally acting totally ignorant about our country or the plan. Sometimes a laugh is as important as anything else in such a trying time. Some are saying the woman comes from a left wing, anti-Semitic, hate fringe group headed by Lyndon LaRouche; but from wherever these ignorant and insulting people are coming, it's good to see one put down and in a witty and very polite way.

Barney Frank saying what many of us have been thinking. Yeah, Barney!

(Photo is from Monday on the creek as I looked down on it from where Farm Boss was repairing a fence and I was helping-- a little.)

Living Wills

Politics and an exploration of dying

One of the things that has been thrown against the Obama administration regarding health care reform has been euthanasia. The right throws up a lot-- health care changes will bankrupt us but also that Obama will kill all the old and sick. Can something bankrupt the federal treasury when it would actually be killing off or denying care to anybody who was sick?

As I have said before, the right wing doesn't use logic for its arguments. It is emotion driven and this is just another example.

Some do worry about euthanasia. We saw that as the right fought against Oregon's Death with Dignity law which is not an involuntary euthanasia bill but rather one that deals with end of life decisions. It empowers a dying person (6 months or less to live certified by doctors) by giving them the option of a prescription for pills (two psychologists have to attest they are in their right mind and understand their decision) that would end their life at a time of their choosing, not the disease's. It formalized what has happened for a long time, and it drove the right as nuts as the Terri Schiavo case.

The right wing doesn't like people to have control over their own lives. They claim to be the party of freedom while they would limit entertainment, education, sex, and how you die. A year ago they might have thought a living will was acceptable but today, if you would be talking to a doctor about it at all, it's not. Death panels was the accusation thrown out by Sarah Palin which of course was picked up by right and left media. Don't kid yourself. Left wing media loves these stories and milks them every bit as much as right wing media.

Since this all reminds me of our personal experience with end-of-life decision making with my mother-in-law, I thought I'd share it. The photo above was taken in 1998. It is of me, her granddaughter, her first great grandchild, and her son. She was 94. About a year later, she fell in her living room (she lived in an assisted living apartment) shattering her hip. Farm Boss raced to the hospital to find out what the situation was to be. The doctors recommended a hip replacement.

That took some real thinking on her part and ours. At that point she had about 5% kidney function and at almost 95, what would be the odds of her being able to withstand such major surgery? We knew how hard it would be on her body. Still she also had a spunky spirit and without that surgery would be doomed to stay in her bed the rest of her life.

The decision, from doctors and family, never for one minute revolved around the cost but instead quality of life. The decision was not impacted by the Oregon Death with Dignity law because she was not someone with a terminal illness. Although she had failing kidneys (Type II Diabetic), there was no end of life prognosis. The idea of her taking pills to end it more quickly never arose with anybody and I don't see that it would with the health care reforms that are being suggested as very few states offer the option anyway. It's been rarely used in Oregon although more have gotten the prescriptions to know they could if they wanted but died comforted by being in control.

My mother-in-law came through her surgery but suffered a lot. She never really recovered and although she had physical therapy, she died a little over three months later in a care facility that offered more services than her assisted living complex had been able to provide.

Was her surgery the right choice? It was expensive but who could know for sure that she might not have gotten up and made it back to being as mobile as she had been? I think it was the right thing to do but still know it was a hard choice which was made by her doctors, her, and her son as it should have been.

My mother-in-law is a prime example of the dire possibilities that the Republicans are trying to use to frighten the elderly. She is also a good example of someone who had a living will.

Anytime she had any surgical procedure she was required to once again sign a statement of what she wanted done should she be unable to respond in anyway other than as a vegetable. She did not want to live on tubes. This choice in her case, and my bet is in most all cases, is not about economics; and if any of you have faced it with a beloved family member, you know it's not. It's about quality of life. There is more chance it would be about economics with the current insurance (profit oriented) companies in control than with the government (Medicare).

Currently the Republican hysteria has led to taking from the bill the right for any Medicare patient to go in for an appointment (their choice not a requirement) to discuss end of life options in their current medical situation.

Thank you Congressional representatives and especial thanks to Sarah Palin for hypocrisy and once again taking from the ordinary person choice regarding their own lives.

The irony of the 'family based,' Republican party is they don't trust the family to make these decisions. They want rules in place that dictate the choices and we see that time and again. The irony of Democratic, so-called progressive party is their lack of courage to do anything they claim they want. Maybe they never wanted any of it to begin.

The right wing should be ashamed of itself but it isn't. Emotion driven as it is, shame is not one of those emotions. What it has done, in an attempt to destroy Obama's effectiveness, is what they did with Clinton. They go after things that have no real meaning (birth certificates, death panels). Yes, Democrats went after Bush but on policy regarding actual issues like fighting wars, torturing, spying on its own citizens, eliminating the right to trial when accused.

The right isn't attacking Obama on his ideas which is what they should be doing. It's on his race (if you don't believe me look at what even legislators are saying, the signs at these right wing hate rallies, the birther movement, the tea partiers ). The right also goes at it by throwing out a myriad of charges (in the case of Clinton it was the death of Vince Foster, mysterious deaths around the Clintons, sex scandals) and seeing what sticks. When the right finds a charge that works, they all jump on it and that's what happened with living wills.

I have to revise my will and make sure that I add the living will part to it. We do this with a computer program that we purchased. You have it notarized when you sign it at a bank, and it's very legal. I know I would not want to live as a vegetable and would not want extraordinary measures taken to keep me alive if something should happen. Temporarily on a feeding tube is one thing but permanently is not. Extending dying is not living.

Although I have told all my family members of my desires, I know from the experience with my mother-in-law that you have to sign such things again anytime you enter a hospital once you are a certain age-- or you used to before the party of death began raising such a stink. And stink is the only appropriate word for what I have been hearing. It's sickening and, as usual, doesn't help any real discussion on health care reform.

There should be a real discussion on how to fix what is a damaged program and not just based on those without insurance but the growing cost of having medical care period. If you start with protecting the profits of insurance companies, you aren't ever going to have meaningful help. If you don't know health care's true cost today, it's because you already have an employer or government paying most of yours. That's not free, you know!

[For those of you interested in astrology, check out: Rainy Day Extra for Lynda Hill's newsletter regarding August 20th]