Dialogue About Race for Mongrels

Up until two years ago, I did not think about race every day. You may find this a funny statement when you realize that I am a Black woman, married to a White man, with three White stepchildren. In addition, my brother's family is Black and Hispanic. Even my Border Collie mix is black and white.

Race was there, but in the background. It didn't determine what door I entered, what water fountain I drank from, or where I sat on a bus. It didn't determine my wages or limit my ability to attend two of the best universities in the United States. So why now, in 2010, are we speaking of race and race relations as though it is 1950?

Because it takes our eyes off the real issues of our time. Like any good magician, our president knows that if we are looking at his right hand we will not notice what the left is doing. With something as sensitive and heart wrenching as our own attitudes about race in his right hand, we will not notice our country changing with his left. We will not notice the left hand creating positions above the purview of the House, Senate and Judiciary. We will not notice the slow nationalization of our industries through taxes, mandates and oversight. We will not notice the slow closing of our windows into our government's actions through slow repeal of the Freedom of Information Act requirements. We will not notice the redistribution of wealth through increased government employment and benefits. We will not notice the movement to remove the achievement-based character of Americans through increased incentives to accept government control and funding of our lives.

I pray that the speed with which our president is moving his left hand will avert our eyes from his right hand. I pray we will open our mouths and shout, "No more!"

America, you are not racist. We all have racial encoding from past experience, but if we treat each other as we would like to be treated--our humanity will always overcome any indoctrination that others try to instill in us. So trust your heart, America. Stop trying to prove that you are not something, and go back to being comfortable in your kindness and generosity. Don't let government make you question who you are. And don't let this administration distract you with meaningless arguments. Focus on being Constitution-based Americans!

We are of one race--we are Americans!

Shirley Sherrod Do you hear yourself?

Before we start, let's remember I am a Black woman. Apparently that is somehow relevant to my ability to be candid about Ms. Sherrod's words and actions. So much for a color-blind, post racism administration. There are 5 parts of this story that should shame all of us as Americans:

1. Our government hired a person to represent it who sees race before need. Ms. Sherrod, I am so glad that your story ends with how you grew beyond these feeling, but you should have turned down the job if you wanted to use it to provide preference to people on the basis of color.

2. Ms. Sherrod believes that telling the world that she now understands that the goal of her position was to move resources from the haves to the have nots, not from Whites to Blacks should make us feel better. Forgive me, but I did not realize that her title was Regional Director of Wealth Redistribution?

3. Ms. Sherrod gets perferential treatment--a do over--when the multitude of conservatives who have misspoken or been taken out of context do not? Oh, I forgot liberals even get to say that being in the Klan was a youthful indiscretion (Sen. Byrd). Conservatives do not get context, do overs or explanations--just resignations in shame.

4. Ms. Sherrod may I introduce you to the concept of shame. Aren't you ashamed to admit that you used your position for anything other than helping all farmers? Or that you lead with your color, not your compassion? Or that you feel you need to tutor Americans, America and the President about "how we feel?" And who are "we?"

5. Finally, the idea that people will listen to interviews with Ms. Sherrod and not see her as a poster child for how liberals must divide us by groups to maintain control. And yet, people will still vote for this divisiveness in the fall.

How Stupid Do American's Look to Politicians and the PRess

So today as I read my e-copy of AHIP' Hi-Wire Connection, a clipping service of America's Health Insurance Plans, I had to ask myself, "How stupid do the press and politicians really think we are?"

The first article listed was an AP story on how Americans receive too many tests and are over treated, especially at the end of life entitled, "Overtreated: More Medical Care Isn't Always Better." This by-lined piece was full of anecdotal information about families who complain about the treatment their family members received, including a radiologist who complained that his daughter had too many abdominal scans after her car accident. How many of you see this as a legal problem not a medical problem? If he weren't a radiologist, do we really believe that the ER would have been as interested in practicing defensive medicine? Or the family that complained that their dying family member received an unnecessary test. So talk to your physician.

This article was so devoid of statistics. The most significant attempt at citing statistics was a mention that 1/3 of all test are proved to be unnecessary. Doesn't that mean that 2/3 of the tests were needed. What portion of the 1/3 are found to be unnecessary though hindsight, but could not be predicted as such prior to a negative result.

At the same time that we are being told by the government that we should work later into life and be healthier, a blanket statement is made about PSAs for men over 75 and the idea that treating someone at that age for prostate cancer is unnecessary. Should not that be determine by the vitality of each individual 75 year old?

The second story was about how scientist are debating whether or not recessions are good for health. Oh, please! I am supposed to believe that reduced air pollution due to idled factories and fewer commuters means we as a society are healthier. What about the increased stress and pollution from having to fly or drive to jobs outside of ones community just to keep enough money coming in to protect ones home and health insurance premiums. Or the stress of constant job hunting? Or are suicide rates also looked at? Or what about mental health versus physical health?

Interestingly enough, these fine observations in the two articles are coming from the National Quality Forum and the American Medical Association. The National Quality Forum which is listed as a non-profit has received $10m in 2009, and will receive that amount per year until 2012 from the federal government to "help establish a portfolio of quality and efficiency measures that will allow the federal government to more clearly see how and whether healthcare spending is achieving the best results for patients and taxpayers. The contract is part of a provision in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 that directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services 'to contract with a consensus-based entity, such as the National Quality Forum.'" In English, to figure out how to ration health care as the federal government becomes increasing involved in paying for it.

The American Medical Association should be recognized as a decidedly left wing group that represents only 19% of all practicing physicians. Nineteen percent is a generous estimate, since many of its members are students, residents and research fellows whose lack of real world experience has not yet allowed them to see how irrelevant this group may be to a practicing physician.

Personally, I would rather have a group of practicing physicians, who deal with real people and real families daily making the rules, than researchers and a fringe group of physicians and medical students. And forgive my consumerism, but I think that patients should be a part of any committee deciding policy.

Name one other industry that so devalues the customer's opinion? We are not stupid! We are consumers! Consumer of a good that could cost us our lives.

Crist and Specter--hard lessons

So Florida, here is what we in Pennsylvania know about politicians who change parties:

- They tend to walk squarely down the middle of the road
- This allows them to have very flexible morals
- You should not count on their conviction to anything other than their own success

We, in Pennsylvania, had these lessons driven home to us while listening to ads for Arlen Specter's, mercifully unsuccessful, run to retain his Senate seat. Don't get me wrong, Sestak is no prize either, but he does get consistency points. Hey, that is the Dems problem not mine. We also have to remember that Arlen Specter was a Democrat, before he was a Republican, before he was a Democrat again. Each time, the change was only related to what he wanted to do to insure a win. (Sorry Arlen, you played that card one time too many.)

Here a man who ran ads with President Bush to defeat Toomey in 2004, happily ran ads about how he has stood solidly with President Obama to try to defeat Sestak.

Just like Crist, Specter was often mentioned as "having the ability to cross the aisle" and being "middle of the road." My husband is fond of saying when you walk down the middle of the road, you get hit by traffic on both sides. Remember my dear Florida voters, these phrase translate as "believing in anything that will get you elected."

These men, by changing parties have proven one thing and one thing only--the job is more important to them than their commitments to the voters. Gov. Crist, I think that soon to be former Senator Specter now knows that winning isn't everything.

To the voters in Florida, congratulations on having a clear and principled choice--Marco Rubio, just as we in Pennsylvania get to do a do-over and vote for Pat Toomey.

Social Service Safety Nets

We often talk about safety net programs.

What happens when a person falls into a net? They are caught, trapped and unable to get free. We should be building safety ladders not safety nets. Our government programs should provide a cushion at the foot of the ladder to allow for a soft landing while the individual recovers and gets up and continues climbing.

We have built a culture of dependency.

Programs today such as endless extensions of unemployment, public health care expansions and all manner of government assistance, rob people of their ability and desire to get back up on the ladder and continue climbing.

Incentives are everything!

The other day I heard a man on the radio lamenting his moral dilemma. What was it? Should he go to work or continue to receive public insurance for his child, unemployment for him, and other assistance to his family including tax refunds of taxes he had not paid, while he continued to live in his large, paid for home in Pennsylvania.

By his calculations, the salary he would need to offset his benefits was substantial. Therefore, it was more beneficial to him to remain unemployed. Remember the rest of us work and pay him to stay home...in relative luxury!

Shame on him...and shame on us for being a society that has taught people to do the math prior to looking for work or insurance or income or...

Shame on us for not creating a society where pride and self reliance have a value in that equation. A society where work has value!

Why? We have become so good at keeping people trapped in the net.

2009 The Year Prostitution Become Legal and Taxpayer Funded

As I reviewed the proposed Health Care Reform bill, senate version, it became apparent that the true affect of this bill is the legalization of prostitution in the Senate. Votes were bought and paid for.

Harry Reid served the role of Pimp in Chief. Can't you just picture him in a full length white fur, with a tricked out Escalade? Just a few examples of how our Senators proved they were easy, but not cheap:

Mary Landrieu $300 million, weren't you moved when she proudly proclaimed it wasn't $100 million, but $300?
Chris Dodd $100 million for a hospital to be named later
Ben Nelson $100 million in Medicaid expansion costs matched at 100% Federal share
Other notable sales:
Florida's exemption from losing Medicare Advantage $4 billion
Michigan's exemption for Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI from insurance taxes
Connecticut's exemption for Mutual of Omaha from insurance taxes

The only money the government has comes from our pockets (federal taxes--right front pocket, state taxes--left front pocket, county and local--back right and left pockets). I don't know about you, but I don't even remember being kissed.

Because I Say So!

What former child doesn’t remember being frustrated and angry when our parents responded to “why?” with, “Because I said so.

Because I said so seems to be the up and coming response for governments, academics and the media throughout the world. As I read the December 3, 2009, Wall Street Journal I was struck with how many times the articles listing abuses of individual rights or lazy scientific outcomes ended with a quote from a government or academic official plainly stating that none of the preceding incidents, nothing in the interviews with numerous sources, none of the facts listed were true.

Why? Were they countered with facts, examples of in accuracies, evidence from well managed scientific inquiry? No. None of the accounts of opponents of governments or scientific findings were true, because the official government or scientific arbiter said so.

Consider if you will, the article by Farnaz Fasshari, “Iranian Crackdown Goes Global”. Accounts of Iranians living abroad being detained and questions as they enter Iran, or who have had their members arrested or threatened in retaliation for speaking out against the regime on Face book, Twitter, You Tube, etc are detailed in the article. The Iranian official contacted simply responded”…false…we have no reports of…” Take my word, because I say so.

The second example is Daniel Henninger’s editorial entitled, “Climategate: Science is Dying”. In this piece he rightly points out the scientific community, once viewed as the last bastion of fact based, evidence based decision making, should be concerned about the East Anglia Research Units liberal use of bias in interrupting and, shall I say, fudging the finding related to climate. He points out that this scandal has little to with climate, but much to do with how science must move to restore its creditability.

He states, “because ‘science’ said so, all the world was about to undergo a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost.”

Even as children we knew that the response, “because I said so” was either an indication of the lack of a logical explanation for why; or, a certainty that the real answer was beyond our capacity to understand and our parent’s patience to explain it.

Just as we outgrew accepting this answer from our parents and teachers, we, as adults must outgrow the willingness to accept this answer from those in positions of authority such as academics, the media and politicians. We must shirk our intellectual laziness and find the answer to why ourselves. Try reading a source document related to an area of interest in your world, like say a few hundred pages of any health care reform legislation, or cap and trade. Not because I say so, but because you want to know why?