WTF Mitt Romney... :(
—
Big Bird (@BlGBlRD) October 04, 2012
Tag Archives: politics
Facebook, Politics, and Police States
As you may have been able to guess from my last couple of posts, Facebook conversations are probably the largest trigger of rage in my daily life. I suspect that I’m not the only one who feels this way. I fully understand that I could just pull the plug. Delete my profile, or at the very least, stop reading my feed. Like many others, however, I’ve got a number of people (including my brother who is currently serving in Afghanistan) who I don’t really have direct contact with otherwise. I don’t chat on the phone, and people don’t really e-mail anymore outside of business- and annoying religious and political-themed chain e-mails. The bigger problem with walking away from Facebook, for me anyway, is that it doesn’t actually solve anything. I’d just be subscribing to the “ignorance is bliss” ideology, and well, I think that’s bullshit.
I sort of feel like a hypocrite tonight. Back in the fall, when the Occupy Movement had just started gaining steam, I found myself frustrated at the level of indifference amongst many of my acquaintances, and really, people in general. I couldn’t understand how people just really didn’t seem to care about things that affected them. I wanted to rally people up.”Open your eyes!” “Fight for your rights!” and all that jazz.
And yet here I am, two steps away from smashing my head against the keyboard because people are doing just that. More specifically, people are outraged because of recent changes to the law in LA County that effectively ban the use of frisbees and footballs on beaches between Labor Day and Memorial Day.
The term “police state” has come up more than once in discussion of this issue. It blows my mind, particularly when you consider that this is really nothing new. The LA County ordinance is merely a revision of already-existing laws on the books, and in fact is somewhat more liberal than the old laws. The law which previously read:
It is unlawful for any person to cast, toss, throw, kick, or roll any ball, tube, or any light object other than inflated rubber balls not less than 10 inches in diameter upon or over any beach regulated by this Part 3…
Has been amended to read:
A. General Prohibition: It is unlawful for any person to cast, toss, throw, kick, or roll any ball, tube, or any light object other than a beach ball or beach volleyball upon or over any beach except the following:
- In an area that may be established and/or designated for such use by the Director.
- When the person first obtains a permit by the Director to conduct such activity.
- When using a water polo ball in or over the Pacific Ocean opposite such beach.
- When using any other object over or in the Pacific Ocean opposite such beach, the person first obtains previous authorization from the Fire Chief or ocean lifeguard to conduct such activity.
B. Exception for Off-Season: The ball-playing restrictions set forth in subsection A shall not be applicable during the period between Labor Day and Memorial Day, provided the involved ball-playing activity is carried out in such a manner so as not to endanger any person or property on or near the beach. In no event shall any structure or improvement used for ball-playing purposes be placed on the beach without the previous authorization of the Director.
You see how that’s a bit different than “omgggg the 5-0 are trying to steal our good time!!!”?
I suspect that the ordinance only exists in the first place due to the inability of some people to use common sense, and the tendency of those very same people to be kind of lawsuit-happy, but I can’t say for sure. It really doesn’t matter to me. This isn’t the authorities saying “You can’t play ball”. This is the authorities saying “You can’t play ball in the middle of this crowded area unless the lifeguard says it’s ok, because we don’t want to have to deal with someone freaking out because they got railed in the head. Take your ball over there. Or use a beach ball. You know, something that is less likely to give someone a bloody nose if they get in your way.”
But maybe that’s just me.
I also suspect that I’m one of very few people who actually bothered to read the ordinance. Many of the media outlets even got the facts wrong, with initial reports stating that anyone in violation of the ordinance would be subject to a $1,000 fine (the actual fine is either $100, $300, or $500, depending on the number of offenses).
Maybe I’d feel better about the outrage if people were better informed, and it didn’t seem like they were just manipulating facts to suit their own agendas. Maybe I’d be ok with it if the people complaining ever did anything to facilitate change, rather than just playing the part of armchair critic on Facebook. I’m certain I’d feel a whole lot better if this hyperawareness and outrage extended further than the featured article on Yahoo! News…but that isn’t the case.
I know that isn’t the case, because I have yet to see a single mention of Syria. If someone can’t play frisbee wherever the hell they want to, we cry and stomp our feet and call it a police state. But an actual situation where people’s basic human rights are at stake is met with silence.
I suppose it’s a good thing that people care at all, but I can’t help but feel angry and frustrated. I’m still screaming, “Open your eyes!”
Susan G. Komen Ends Funding to Planned Parenthood
Earlier today, Planned Parenthood announced that the Susan G Komen for the Cure foundation has decided to halt all funding for breast cancer screenings conducted at Planned Parenthood health centers due to increased pressure from anti-abortion groups.
According to a message posted on the Planned Parenthood website:
Over the past five years, Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.
Now, after facing criticism from anti-choice, anti-women’s health groups, the Komen Foundation has decided to stop supporting women seeking care at Planned Parenthood health centers.
Needless to say, I find this absolutely infuriating. I have been a patient at Planned Parenthood for the past 10 years, since I turned 19 years old and went there for my first annual exam and PAP. As a woman without access to affordable health care, Planned Parenthood has been my only source of consistent health care. I’ve gone there diligently, every year, for my annual exam and cancer screenings. I have a long history of fibroid tumors in my family, and receiving hormonal birth control from Planned Parenthood has spared me from countless agonizing symptoms. I’ve developed a rapport with my practitioner at the local clinic, and I know I can ask her for advice regarding just about any health issue. If I have a question she can’t answer, or a problem she can’t address, I can get her professional referral.
To say I’m dismayed at the decision of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation would be a gross understatement. The way I see it is this: you either support women’s health programs, or you don’t. In the 10 years I’ve been a patient with Planned Parenthood, I’ve never had a decision forced on me. I was the one who determined I didn’t want to become pregnant. I was the one who decided to go on hormonal birth control. I was the one who chose what form of HBC I wanted. All Planned Parenthood did was provide me with options, and educate me on both the benefits and risks of those options. Largely in due part to the services provided by Planned Parenthood, I have never been pregnant. I’ve never had an abortion. Yet, according to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, I don’t deserve access to these valuable services, because I receive them from a provider that also offers abortions/abortion referral services.
I posted the following to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure facebook wall:
I am beyond disappointed to learn that you have pulled funding from Planned Parenthood. As a woman without access to affordable health insurance, Planned Parenthood has been my *only* source for valuable cancer screenings for the last 10 years. If you were really concerned with women’s health, you would know that Planned Parenthood provides a variety of vital services to help women maintain their overall health. In your info, you state “Nancy G. Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever.”. “…do everything besides providing valuable funding for cancer screenings to those you don’t agree with politically” seems to be more like it. Well, that goes both ways. Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be receiving any support from me.
Of course, this brought out the trolls. One particularly noteworthy response:
are you SURE you're anti-troll?
I’ll admit, I’m not up on my abortion-related research. So I decided to do some digging. It didn’t take long, however. A quick Google search of “abortion cancer” brought me to the National Cancer Institute site; more specifically, the factsheet entitled “Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk“. According to the NCI:
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.(emphasis mine)
As far as the free clinics go, guess what? We don’t have one where I live. There may be 8,000 free clinics in the United States, but when you consider that there are 1003 towns and cities in my state alone, that really isn’t very many. As a matter of fact, there are 442 free clinics in New York State, and from what I can tell, all but maybe 3 of them are in New York City. I live approximately 90 miles from NYC. It’s a 2.5 hour commute in each direction. I don’t have a car, and I can’t afford the $50 for the round-trip bus ticket. In my town, we have some urgent care clinics, but they require payment in full at the time of service, and they don’t provide any preventative care services. With limited funds and no health insurance, if I want any sort of women’s health service, Planned Parenthood is literally my only option.
I know I’m not alone in this. It’s certainly not beyond me that the majority of Planned Parenthood patients are low income, and have limited resources. So it makes me wonder about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. What is it that they are really looking to do? It certainly doesn’t seem to me that they are concerned with promoting women’s health. If they were, they would not be revoking funding from such a crucial provider of women’s health services. The information on their Facebook page states:
Nancy G. Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. That promise is now Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a wonderful reflection of her.
Apparently, “everything in her power” does not include providing funding to organizations with differing political opinions than she holds.
As I stated earlier, Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be receiving any support from me. Instead, I will choose to focus on organizations that care about providing comprehensive care for women, and that do not buckle to political pressure. If you agree, please consider doing one (or both) of the following:
Donate directly to Planned Parenthood
Tell Susan G. Komen for the Cure that supporting women’s health is more than buying pink, or wearing a ribbon.
Pay as You Earn Proposal: Too Little Too Late?
**10/28/2011 6:42pm : I just came across this Huffington Post article, which basically expresses the same concerns I have regarding the Pay as You Earn Proposal. Those interviewed in the article reinforce what I had suspected: the proposal will help those who enroll in college beginning in 2014, but it does nothing for those who are already struggling to keep up with their student loan payments. I’m still waiting to hear back from Sallie Mae re: Income-Based Repayment.
I woke up this morning to an email from The White House. No, I’m not some powerful insider. Rather, I had taken part in the “We the People” petition process, and signed a petition asking the Obama Administration to forgive student loan debt. According to the email, the administration was “excited to announce a new policy that speaks to the concerns expressed in this petition.”
At first glance, I was excited too. This new “Pay as You Earn” proposal will allow some borrowers to greatly reduce their monthly student loan payments, as it limits loan payments to 10% of the borrower’s discretionary income.In addition, all remaining debt will be forgiven after 20 years. A glimmer of hope.
Then, I read on and came across this paragraph:
Current law allows borrowers to limit their loan payments to 15 percent of their discretionary income and forgives all remaining debt after 25 years. However, few students know about this option. Students can find out if they are currently eligible for IBR at www.studentaid.ed.gov/ibr.
Again, I had some momentary jubilation. Another glimmer of hope. There might just be an option that will help me make my loan payments more managable! Something that might allow me to repay the $60k I owe in student loans, without forcing me to choose between my loan payment, rent, and groceries. I clicked the link to the IBR site. I filled out the IBR calculator. After completing all of the steps, I received a lovely message that told me I might qualify for the program, which would reduce my monthly loan payment to approximately $110/month (about a third of what it currently is). The message advised me that this was just an estimate, and that if I wanted to apply for Income-Based Repayment, I should contact the servicer of my loan.
Now, I hate using the phone. Blame it on 4 years of working in a call center, but I avoid picking up the receiver at all costs. If I absolutely have to use the phone, I make sure that I have a purpose, and that I’m prepared with all necessary information. Before placing a call to my servicer, I decided to look a bit further into the terms of qualification for IBR and the recently-announced proposal reforming the plan. Here’s what I found:
- The newly announced “Pay as You Earn” proposal is set to go into effect for all new borrowers after 2014—mostly impacting future college students. Those of us who are currently struggling to balance our student loan debt with our living expenses don’t qualify.
- According to the Federal Student Aid website, “All Stafford, PLUS and Consolidation Loans made under either the Direct Loan or FFEL Program are eligible for repayment under IBR, EXCEPT loans that are currently in default, parent PLUS Loans (PLUS Loans that were made to parent borrowers), or Consolidation Loans that repaid parent PLUS Loans. The loans can be new or old, and for any type of education (undergraduate, graduate, professional, job training).” Alright. This is where things get confusing. From what I’ve been able to determine, “direct loans” either means
- Stafford loans
- Grad PLUS loans
- Most federal consolidation loans
- OR it means:
- Only loans that were dispensed by the US Dept. of Education (those dispensed through banks or other private lenders are ineligible.)
The problem with this is that I can’t tell which is correct. I can’t seem to find any clarification. Do I qualify, or not?
Needless to say, I’m frustrated, and disappointed. I’m starting to get a little bit angry…and when I get angry, I argue. I am an experienced arguer. I’ve often been told that I should have gone to law school because of my ability to dig in and manipulate an argument in my favor. Of course, I don’t have a human being standing here to argue with. But I do have a statement: the White House press release. Let’s take another look at the text I quoted earlier, this time with some emphasis on my part:
Current law allows borrowers to limit their loan payments to 15 percent of their discretionary income and forgives all remaining debt after 25 years. However, few students know about this option. Students can find out if they are currently eligible for IBR at www.studentaid.ed.gov/ibr.
So. The government has a plan in place to help borrowers manage their student loan debt. And the government is trying to express its concern with helping borrowers overcome their student loan debt by pointing out that it has this program which very few people know about. What? This reminds me of when someone omits an important fact, and then when you act outraged at the omission, they turn the blame around on you for not asking about what you didn’t know in the first place.
I honestly hadn’t heard of Income-Based Repayment until I got the e-mail in my inbox this morning. It’s been seven years since I graduated college; five years since I got my master’s degree. I’m the rare person who actually read through my master promissary notes before I signed them. When I go to my loan servicer’s site and click on the links to manage my loans and reduce my payments, I’m given the same options for deferment and forbearance that I’ve seen (and used) a million times. I’ve never seen anything about Income-Based Repayment. Perhaps this is my fault for not knowing where to look. I’ve got to wonder, though, shouldn’t the lenders and servicers be responsible for making this information readily available to their customers?
In 2009, the federal Department of Education took over federal student loans, ending the participation of private lenders in the program. In essense, this means that the US government is now solely in charge of federal student loans. The US government also manages IBR. If few students know about this option, I have to ask, who’s fault is it?
After some digging, I did manage to find some information on my servicer’s site regarding IBR. I have no idea whether my loans are actually eligible or not (One was originally taken out from Fleet, and then turned over to Bank of America. The second originated with Bank of America. The two have now been consolidated with Sallie Mae). I’ve submitted all of the necessary information, so I guess we’ll see.
I’m really glad that the Obama administration seems to be listening to the American public in some regard. I’m glad that some steps are being taken to alleviate some of the crippling student loan debt our nation is experiencing. I can’t help but think, however, that this isn’t enough. The petition I signed wasn’t asking for the government to lower payments over time. If the IBR program is solely for loans through the Dept. of Education, many of us who are currently struggling will continue to do so, as our loans were issued by the banks. I’m hoping that this legislation isn’t a last minute ploy to gain votes for re-election (though I think I know better). I’m hoping this is just the first step, because we’ve still got so far to go.
***10/26/2011 9:04PM: I just received this video in an email from BarackObama.com. The video helps to simplify and clarify the Pay as You Earn proposal somewhat…but is it enough? What do you think?
