Tom's Views

I spent some of today writing change of address letters to businesses we deal with, per the E911 project. But they don’t accept these requests over the phone anymore. Grrrrrr. Seems like we must spend too much overhead for security these days, because though I had all the information they would have cared to ask to verify my identity, they still demanded letters be sent. What a pain.

Mom did not move today. Her insurance company is still balking at covering an intensive physical therapy facility; which she clearly needs. So, she’s probably going back to the nursing rehab facility either today or Monday.  It’s not definite yet that she’ll ultimately be denied the rigorous exercise program.  But it’s a distinct possibility.  Given my experiences caring for Mom within our current healthcare system over the past five years or so: Sometimes, when someone says that the US has the best health care in the world, I catch myself choking on chuckles, and then, covering my mouth to hide my tonsils and mute the full-blown bah ha has.

Since caring for Mom, I’ve observed numerous gaping problems in our system.  Here are some of them:

• Poor communication between hospitals.  When Mom transfers from one hospital to another, her complete records have not always followed her immediately.
• Lots of unnecessarily repetitious work.  So far, every time she transfers to another facility, we must resubmit our power-of-attorney papers, even if we had supplied them at her last visit to a particular hospital.
• All facilities I’ve observed over the past few years with Mom’s many hospital visits, are way understaffed and way overworked.
• Lacking coordination among the doctors caring for Mom.  So often, we’ve gotten one story when talking to a particular doctor, and then quite another when talking to a different doctor.  Doctor teams should meet more often and “get their stories straight” before talking to patients.
• Unavailability of doctors to update family on patient status.  Frequently, we’ve had to wait days to meet with a doctor to tell us how Mom is doing and get a prognosis.
• Hospitals are “dirty” places with all sorts of viruses and bacteria running around in great amounts.  Thus, I fear for my own safety should I ever require hospitalization.  Sometimes, it’s true that the cure is worse than the illness.
• Health insurance policies are quite difficult to understand.  In fact, there are those who make careers out of understanding them and then explaining them to customers.  What’s up with that?
• Health insurance companies are too picky about who they cover; denying insurance to anyone with pre-existing medical problems.  Fortunately, the health care reforms enacted this year attempt to address this issue; particularly with children’s coverage.   But unfortunately, the big insurance companies have found loopholes in the law to exploit already.  This year’s health care reforms were supposed to eliminate the pre-existing conditions criterion from consideration by insurance companies. They’re not supposed to any longer deny children coverage based on pre-existing illnesses. However, some of these insurers, to get around this new law, are canceling their coverage of children altogether.  See, this is JUST the sort of thing that a single-payer (a.k.a. public) healthcare option would have prevented. But people didn’t want it. *sigh* So now, many children may have to go without coverage.
• Blood sugar levels not controlled very well for diabetics.  They typically only read the blood sugar and dispense insulin twice per day (we do it four to six times per day at home).  So, readings typically run high, in the low to mid 200′s, which is significantly higher than recommended levels.  This can retard patient healing, which would seem to interfere with the hospital’s key mission; to heal patients.  Plus, they serve a lot of “non diabetic” food to diabetics such as white flour, starchy courses, and sugary desserts. Frequently absent from menus are green vegetables, lean meats, whole grains, beans, seeds, fresh fruits, and nuts.  One would think that they’d know better in a hospital setting and that they’d give higher priority to better glucose management.

I’ll add more items to the above list as they occur.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Gender Rating Health Care Is Discrimination
• Health Care Conservatives Blame Victims for Playing Victims
• Universal Health Care Economically and Morally Superior to Free Market Health Care
• US Healthcare Debate

We heat our water with gas here.  But I’ll not be buying tankless any time soon. In fact, I hope I won’t be buying ANY type of water heater any time soon.

Related Posts About Heating

• Honeywell RLV310A Non Programmable Digital Thermostat Review

I’m often left verbally paralyzed at the brash audacity of some people to even think such irrational views much less state them in public forums.  A case in point: One fellow said that allowing a mosque new ground zero would be like asking a Jew to fly a German flag on his (the Jew’s) door.  Well, once I caught my breath, I replied that his statement did not answer my original question as to how far away the mosque should be to appease the opposition.  Besides I told him, there are many Jews living in Germany who proudly display German flags on their doors.  In fact, few Jews blame   all   Germans for the Holocaust.

He then said that anywhere in NYC is too close.  The mosque, he suggested should be placed outside the city.  Then a woman chimed in, “Put it in New Jersey.”  So I asked: What about the Muslim AMERICANS that live in NYC?  Are you suggesting that we should deny them a mosque ANYWHERE in their hometown?

Then, he further stymied me by suggesting that there’s no such thing as a Muslim American; saying that these people are here because they chose to be here.  Hmmmm.  As if one’s choosing to be an American citizen means that we can bully them into submission at will, like what’s being done with the Muslim mosque visionaries.  So I asked him if he meant to say that a Muslim can’t be an American citizen by virtue of the simple fact that he’s Muslim.  Is there in fact, such a thing as a Jewish American, or an Israeli American, or an African American? If these exist, then why not a Muslim American?  He did not respond further.  But another learned fellow added that excluding Muslims from American citizenry is akin to what was done to the Jew, Italian, Catholic, et al, American immigrants.  These all, he noted, have contributed greatly to the American ways of freedom and eclectic culture so enjoyed today.  In fact, it’s their decision to make their homes in America that grants them the right practice their religions where they like.  In fact, that’s why many of them come here in the first place.

The woman in this discussion then said that she was concerned about the safety of anyone who would worship at the ground zero mosque, and I replied that people’s safety is a legitimate concern. But if they decide that they’re willing to take the risk, should they not be allowed to do so? Besides, northern New Jersey isn’t that far from NYC. Do you really think a few miles more distance would really make the mosque much safer?  She said yes.

Well, I do not share her certainty on that point. I mean, with New Jersey so close, it would be too easy for the anti-Muslim zealots to drive across the bay and wreak havoc.

Further, this mosque is to serve the Muslim community that has resided in lower Manhattan for decades. So she would have those people drive extra miles each time they wanted to use the mosque in NJ, for decades to come, all in the name of SENSITIVITY? Pardon me. But if so, then that seems quite selfish to me.

Perhaps one ride or two or three on the train is not unreasonable. But you’re asking many Muslim Americans to make that trip, at least once or twice per week, or however often they wish to worship, for as long as this mosque will stand (de…cades or perhaps even centuries). In so doing, we’d be making it harder (less convenient) for Muslims to worship at their community mosque; especially since that community mosque would not even be in their community. This is tantamount to picking on Muslims; bullying them in fact. Indeed, this resembles blatant DIS-favoritism of a particular religion; something that’s never supposed to happen in the USA under ANY circumstances. But then, bullies are typically not known for their broad world views of tolerance.

Why must we always have this same fight? First it was the blacks, then it was women, then the Japanese, then homosexuals, and now, it’s Muslims. Will people NEVER get the idea that this emotion-based “gut feel” oppression never wins in the end? I mean, in Jim Crow days, the same sorts of arguments were made against blacks using the same restrooms as whites and attending the same schools. “We find them sharing our restrooms offensive.” Imagine if that sentiment had been allowed to stand.

I guess some folks just have an innate need to repress. But now that laws have been enacted to make illegal the bullying of blacks and women based on their race and sex, these bullies find other groups to pick on, that laws do not yet protect fully. So they’ve moved on to gays and Muslims. Hmmm. I wonder what these bullies will do once they run out of groups to muscle?

Fortunately, the law protects the rights of these Muslim Americans to build the mosque wherever they wish so long as they comply with local laws and customs, and so far, no one has filed suit to stop the progress of this project. So the opposition really has no leg to stand on, unless they can convince the Imam not to build there. If they can’t, then they’ll just have to suck it up and learn to be more tolerant.

It occurs that I’m not a very good debater. It’s just that in this case, I have the easier argument. That is, it’s much easier to argue for liberty and freedom than for oppression and undue restrictions.  If we must have churches, mosques, and any other places of worship, then where they’re built should be decided fairly and without any sort of phobia to destroy the fairness of the decision. America is about freedom of religion, and to restrict where Muslims build their mosques violates this basic tenant of our society here in the US.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Muslim American Mosque At Ground Zero
• Support Muslim Mosques Anywhere In America

So why do I use the phrases “total acceptance” and “total equality” interchangeably?

Total acceptance and total equality are, in detailed semantic ways, distinct concepts.  But I often use them interchangeably in this blog, because they are so similar.  They’re so dependent on one another that you typically can’t have one without the other.  That is: We can’t treat the gays equally with the “more esteemed” heterosexual folks, unless we accept their life styles as equally valid and respectable. If we view their orientation as “less,” then we’ve lost the power to completely accept them, and along with that goes our ability to treat them with genuine equality.

No, neither complete acceptance or complete equality imply “the same  outcome,” but refer to the same   chance   to make similar results happen.   Some folks are better suited to perform certain jobs than others.  I make a better writer for example than a firefighter.  Now total acceptance   does not   mean that if I go to the fire station and request to work for them, that I should be hired.  I can’t conclude that I’ve not been accepted just because I did not get the job.  Indeed, a person’s skill level and aptitude in a discipline, matter here.  That is, my being turned down because I lack the necessary skills and aptitude to perform the position well does not necessarily violate the equality precept.  However, if I do have the required know-how, then I should be considered   equally   along with others who also possess similar skills in similar degree.  Even if I happen to be gay, this should hold.  Bt it canot hold unless in the eyes of the law, and on a deeper moral level, I am completely accepted by potential employers, or at least accepted enough that prejudices do not exert an undue influence over the decision to hire me or not.  The laws can force employers to accept me, at least enough to hire me. But   no law   however, can make some accept me if they wish not to, and this makes enforcing equal rights difficult.

In fact, I’venot established complete acceptance in the eyes of the employer, just because the law protects my right to equal treatment.  For complete equality, we must look beyond the laws, to the realms of moral acceptance; which rest deep in the internal psycological makeup of each of us.  Totalacceptance I suspect, would occur when we can view someone who has been heretofore objectionable and thus rejected in some way, and say to ourselves truthfully that we do not, in any way or degree, object to them any longer.  For the homosexual, this means that people would see him or her without the so-often-accompanying knee-jerk reaction of revulsion, and welcome him into their midst for his person-hood and the skills he brings to the table.

But of course, the level of acceptance cannot be legislated.  While we might force employers to treat people somewhat equally with laws (and this is a step in the right direction), we can’t make them accept the person on these deeper levels, and as long as we’ve not attained this level of complete acceptance, the laws that help ensure equal treatment will always be challenged and require periodic extension.  But if complete acceptance wasto ever really happen, then the laws geared to encourage equality would no longer be challenged; at least not on grounds of sexual orientation or the dimensions laid out in the Civil Rights Act, such as race, sex, religion, creed, et al.  From this, I infer that   without complete acceptance, you can’t have genuinely complete equality.  Complete equality is an external manifestation of complete acceptance just as thunder and lightning are external manifestations of a thunderstorm, and unless you’re close to a volcano, you can’t have lightning without a storm to host it.  In fact, increased acceptance can inspire increased equality and reduced acceptance curtails the genuineness of equality.  In this regard, the existence of equality derives from the existence of acceptance.

But also, complete acceptance would seem to require complete equality, or equality in some measure, to encourage people to more fully accept each other.  Since we don’t legislate acceptance, but only equality, we often create rules that foster equaltreatment of people with the hope that this will teach current and future generations how to accept each other.  If an employer is compelled by law to treat people equally for example, then holding on to oppressive attitudes becomes more difficult for many reasons.  For one, laws of equality (the Civil Rights Act et al) say that employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of various personal attributes.  Over generations, the laws encourage a more open exchange of cultures and ideas among people of differing backgrounds, and from those exchanges over time, grows a fuller appreciation of the person.  Different people work more together, and those who initially hold prejudiced and bigoted ideas, often learn that they were wrong once they work side-by-side with those they once shunned. In this way, enforced equality often brings about acceptance; though this process can take many years to complete.

So, equality and acceptance, though distinct concepts as noted, are in fact highly and symbiotically linked.  You can’t really have one in full without the other.  So when we’re discussing one of these, we’re implicitly discussing the other one too.  Thus, I have used the phrases “complete equality” and “complete acceptance” synonymously for these reasons; though I do get that they’re different concepts.

Tom Hesley

Bigots rarely confess. In fact, those epitomizing bigotry believe their oppressive and discriminatory views to be perfectly reasonable and justified. So don’t waste energy proving a bigot’s bigotry to him. Instead, cultivate acceptance in those open to it, and maybe, the bigot will eventually come around.  But then again, sometimes, it’s rewarding to argue with a bigot (or any other form of dogmatist), because while you may not convince your opponent of his wrongness, you may persuade many others of your rightness who are silently watching and listening; those so-called on-the-fence folks.  So keep debating because you’ll win hearts, though perhaps not your opponent’s.

Now I don’t mean to suggest that ALL dogmatists are bigots, but instead that it’s due to dogmatism that bigotry remains so prominent. That is: While not all dogmatists are bigots, most steadfast bigots do tend to be dogmatists. Why? Because they don’t change their views even when hard-core scientific evidence refutes the view, or when there’s little objective scientific evidence that supports the view. While some dogmatism can result in good for society (like the steadfast belief that murder is wrong for example that helps keep us safe), bigotry rarely offers any similarly positive effects. Dogmatists can be simply well-principled and resolute while the most noteworthy bigots are typically just closed-minded, and way overplay the devotion-to-a-belief card. A little dogmatism is healthy. But when it remains, and escalates to the point of bigotry, then, it’s bad. Unfortunately, though bigotry is a subset of dogmatism, it’s nonetheless way more common than it should be in this day and age. I’d think we would have learned by now not to accept or reject people based on single attributes. But we haven’t; yet.

I disagree with the assertion that bigotry need not always result in the rejection of people. Why? Because at some level (internal thoughts or external behaviors), by its dictionary definition, bigotry ALWAYS results in rejection. It embodies intolerance,   prejudice,   extreme disapproval, harsh judgements, and so on. Indeed, none of these traits of bigotry I submit, would ever make someone to whom it is directed against, feel welcome or accepted. However, they would far more often, make them feel rejected and excluded.

You personally may not reject homosexuals due to bigoted views. If that’s true, then you are the rare exception to the rule. Indeed the most prominent homophobes that appear in the media these days become tongue-tied when they’re really pressed to explain why they hold such discriminatory and hateful views. They cite as fact, reasons that turn out to be inaccurate. For example: They exaggerate the harm a homosexual relationship might do to society as fact when there’s mounds of evidence that these types of relationships are actually good for society because they allow gays to more fully embrace their sexuality.

When a person decides to hold an oppressive view in the absence of corroborating evidence, this is the WORST KIND of closed-mindedness, in my humble opinion. Again, by dictionary definition, closed-mindedness results when someone is not open to other ways of thinking; whether those ways are valid or not. I hope it’s clear therefore, that closed mindedness is a necessary component of the negative sorts of dogmatism, such as bigotry.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Am I A Bigot For Wanting A Tall Thin Woman?
• Arizona’s New Illegal-Aliens Law
• Immigrants Must Adapt?
• Is Homosexuality Genetic?
• Mosque At Ground Zero