Forced gestation. Need for compensation. Eminent domain. Autonomy vs. Colonization.

Abortion Issue: Forced Gestation.

Who Decides:

The "Worthy" for the "Unworthy"?

There's Trouble.

First, sound-bites.  Then an analysis. Should we see the abortion debate as Colonialism. Redcoats or Red Coats Redux; or as an issue of eminent domain, to be treated as such.

• Who decides who can be entrusted with the decision matters.

• Is abortion prohibition really eminent domain of the womb; to be compensated for.

Are you alarmed?

The colonial-native relationship. Identify the native for extra credit in your blue book.

The Red Coats. Redcoats never went away, for some.
.

Start with the Colonial idea.  Colonial forces of both genders

1) Assert cultural and religious infallibility;

2) Demand obeisance; and

3) Deny autonomous decision-making: the colony-native relationship

Is that so?

 Scattering Confetti Before the Parade of Ideas


A.  Colonial-Native Relationship

To be a colony   To be a colonist.  To be one colonized.  See ://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/.

Whether in politics or religion, to be colonized is to lose autonomy.  Those who do colonize others, get used to it and justify it as "natural".  The roles, however, have long term repercussions: there are built-in conflicts, instability as underlings question the order of things, and threaten with fact, reason, and force of their own, those who put themselves in power.

Restricting federal funding for abortions in the healthcare bill or otherwise is to treat a population as a colony - the colonized being the population that actually gestates.  They are made to do so.

This is not to focus on the merits of the issue, who is right or who is wrong about people's dogma about souls and sanctity ideas, and when or if those are merited - all that depends on the factors you adopt, what persuaded you.  The focus here is on who is deemed worthy to decide. Who gets the law. Is any law in this area really necessary.
 .
When is any force "moral". And - taking an extreme, making abortion illegal - means that the government as colonizer is actually forcing a life-changing behavior on someone, for someone else's political or religious reasons. Would any male stand for that? What does that say about the decision-worthiness of the colonized.  Right now, the United States has a "usual" number of people in industrialized country seeking abortions, but do your own searches because so many stats are seeded to persuade this way or that.

B.  Autonomy as The Real Power Issue.  

Not "Morality" at all, because religion is ambiguous historically. 

For a man, depriving him of his autonomy is seen as a hell. But depriving a woman of her autonomy is seen as religiously mandated, necessary, and bad translations tainted over time by politics and fervor, are quoted.  But depriving her of her autonomy can be a hell for her.  Is that so? Is it time to move on?

Adam runs off scot-free. Saint Anastasia, Verona, Italy. What services for his happy performance are covered, while she is stuck on the receiving end.

.

B.1.  Government interference in the marketplace of choices.

For critics of government involvement in healthcare at all, why then promote it when it is in the reproductive area?

In the past, government forcing behavior or intruding in the marketplace, including restricting people's liberty, taking away their autonomy in specific decision-making, came with a carrot: compensation.  There was at least an effort to treat all alike in the process:  The government wants to take? Compensate, then take. A partnership.

Do it here as well. Otherwise, there will recur this horror: The never-stopped-anyway, self-help will emerge, with the coat hangers and the herbs, as always, see the non-hanger side at  ://www.scribd.com/doc/22321349/Natural-Liberty-Rediscovering-Self-Induced-Abortion-Methods/.

But prohibition is no answer. Not in liquor, see ://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/alcohol/pa-157.html; not in marijuana (no reduction in use), and not in abortion. Human behavior is more complex than a mere prohibition can address.

B.2.  Forced gestation is like eminent domain, isn't it.

The government, if it refuses to allow a termination of the gestation (a goal for some), or to allow its healthcare insurance as part of an overhaul to be used for abortion, is taking that part of the woman's anatomy for public purposes. Depriving of autonomy for a "public" purpose that is really to satisfy only some other people's religious or other views of her place and inadequacy in making moral decisions..

Right to life. Whose?  Read aloud this one: "Right to Life" by Marge Piercy at ://home.naxs.com/melaniet/piercy.htm#Right%20to%20Life/ Sometimes even deeply felt images make their point by making you smile: "A woman is not a basket you place your buns in, to keep them warm."  Marge, Marge. A startle, then the nod to oneself.

B.3.  The early church left the abortion issue alone. Wisely.

So should we.  Go back to history:  The early church carefully left out all reference to abortion in its canon. Look back at the 6th Century. See Vetting Roots, Early Christian Writings on Abortion.  Don't touch the issue. Autonomy originally respected, with incursions when the man insisted on exposure for the runty or female child or some such - the beginnings of lackeyhood. Only the Gnostics and Heretics addressed abortion, and what they said was rejected. Is that so? Anything thereafter to raise the issue is bootstrapping. Tout a new dogma to suit the powers.  More confetti all around. It worked.

8th Century Biblical Text, Kremsmunster Abbey, Kremsmunster, Austria. Many texts, many translations, many slips between copies.

Abortion was and is an area of personal responsibility, personal accountability.  Too difficult to analyze, for others to balance. Leave it alone.  They did. Wisely. Religious views against choice evolved over time; as politics enabled ,and the masculinization of religious authority erected, new barriers to women's rights to be autonomously human as time went by.  There is nothing roots-ish about it.

B.4.  Leave out all federal involvement in any reproductive enhancement or restriction; 
or put it all in.

To single out the woman is Zygote Determinism at work.

Regardless of the governmental political motivation to allow restrictions on women's reproductive decisions, or to punish the few to self-satisfy others, the effect of depriving her of the right to decide is a kind of zygote-determinism, and that is odd and even insulting. Why is it the assumption that the woman's moral decision will be less than a man's. There is no monopoly in the male in seeking, needing autonomy.

Life's Little Dance. Sharing the benefits and the burdens.

.

Meet Marge Piercy. Here, again, is a site for her poems -- ://home.naxs.com/melaniet/piercy.htm#Right%20to%20Life/

Her basic idea is that the woman has a right to life, her own life. Is that so. With balances, of course. The longer she waits to decide, the less complete her authority to do so, depending. And that's the rub. So many circumstances.

And if she does not have that right at all, isn't that a religion based idea. Or sheer culture. Other people's.

B. 5.  Solutions?  Ta-da. 

Let those who follow their own religion or culture, help themselves to it.

If government in a multicultural setting, however, is to adopt one view, and support that group and not others, if we are to turn women into incubators, that we then should correspondingly restrict what the man can do so he does not make it worse.

• Look now -  particularly where federal funds flow freely to foster the male's experience enhancement prescriptions, and pay with federal funding, so he can dash about making as many zygotes as possible with his performance enhancers, whether she wants them or not.
• The purpose, to restrict or enhance, is a public one if the government backs it. And a taking away of choice from the one who bears the consequence through biology alone, is a taking of a liberty.  Who gets to make the choice about the zygote. That is the issue. She may decide to foster it. 
  

Bern Cathedral, Switzerland, facade. Hell for the man: Deprivation of his. Hell for some women: Forced keeping what lands in hers.
• Other ideas: Why indeed let the government get between the woman and her doctor. Is it to protect her from hell? Will she burn if she terminates it, as some religious suggest? So whose problem is it? Hers.  If so, if that is the consequence, let her decide, take responsibility. 
• What except bullying, gives standing to those who contribute only a few minutes, or perhaps a few hours, to launch the enterprise and then abandon what was loosed; then to direct where it goes thereafter. 
  
•  Is control of women a fear of them? See Studying Wars, Women in War Part II:  Look back at the ancients. Minerva, the goddess of war, was also the goddess of wisdom.  But Mars, the god of war, had no wisdom attached to him.  Wise use of force is superior to mere force. So....
  

Complexities of who, what, where, when, how.  There is no governmental way to address those across the board.

• We are not talking late-term whim here.  There is a point where societal and personal autonomy interests have to balance, of course. This is addressed to the first trimester or so, using a flexible but common sense divider, if not totally scientific.  But for our purposes, it suffices. Laches, delay in decision, viability, all can affect how absolute that decision can be.
  

C.  Positive Attraction Can Work. The Lure, not the Whip.

Better yet is to leave the decisionmaking with the lady in question, but make the choice to bear so positive that she will want to choose to foster the pregnancy.

This is no place for judging, she said judgmentally. But judging is such fun. So self-affirming. Is that so?

What if life is not like this?

.

Given the need for balance on autonomy each step of the way, here is a roadmap:  We can still help make the climate, the environment, the culture, so amenable and welcoming for whatever ensues, in addition to the funding, that she really has no other reasonable choice to make. No stigma.  The joy of life, not slurs. Gentle persuasion, benefits, admiration, accolades. Elevate her status, man around or not. By the way, where is he?

And to seal the deal, promote someone wanting to do it, consider it compensable work, as it is.

C.1.  Government's payment: a reasonable compensation is possible for those who are virtually forced to gestate, because of government policies. 

Compensation for the taking. How to value what compensation may make the governmental Interference with Somebody's Body fair:

Colonizer.  A Congressional Decider. Really Stonehenge.

.

 C.1.  Brainstorm resolutions

 Hourly rates. Incubation fees. Set them at double minimum wage for the gestation from refusal to terminate through delivery;  then annual amounts calculated weekly, at the poverty level of income, until the offspring is ready to take off, at age of emancipation as determined by the state of residence

•  Rental analogy. Womb for rent. Consider this a governmental forced womb-rental, a governmental interference so that an uninvited or one that is not welcome at least, a womber tenant at will, becomes a womber tenant until full term.  

• Whatever is done, be consistent. No bills of attainder. Even-handedness.  If federal funding for abortions is left out of the healthcare bill, then also leave out any other interference with the natural order of things, including the viagras and implants and grafts. Why give one side the fun, and the other the work; put all the autonomy on one side.

• Tax exploitive self-indulgence in advance. Ha. Perhaps every boy could begin paying a tax at age 13 so that the amounts can be available for payout to those who need pursuant to the terms hereto, since boys will be boys and we all know, will not take "no" as an answer, and they are stronger.

.

Resolution discussions. Who decides for the other. True eggs.

• Establish an Adopt-A-Zygote program.  Harvest the little critters, put them in a nice tub, and people can adopt, have them implanted or watch them in the petris until birth.

Whimsy? How much.  How much is serious. You decide.

Brainstorming leads to odd results, but some may strike some as fun, or possible, and lead to an epiphany of sorts. You pick. And if you are male, of course you win. You have more votes in the Great Places. No "no" need be paid attention to.  She's stuck. C'est la vie?

No.  Go back to Lysistrata, by 5th Century BC, the Greek playwright, Aristophanes, see overview site at ://ancienthistory.about.com/od/lysistrata/a/lysistrata/.  Or, better, see ://www.theatredatabase.com/ancient/aristophanes_005.html/.  Abstain, refuse, says Lysistrata, and watch them come 'round, in that case, stop warring.
,

Parthenon, Greece. Cultural role conflicts and relationship issues, then and now. See Lyistrata.

Did it work? Read it at google books at ://books.google.com/books?id=YhaawA_m9SEC&dq=lysistrata+by+aristophanes&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=wa299kmTdq&sig=nHbKc4xj7eorBCN3cdRIuil1y8s&hl=en&ei=ilkGS_bPA4-knQfIgKG7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false/

New World Crisis Thanksgiving. The Deathly Allergies.

 The New World Thanksgiving.

Allergy Alert.

No more cook with garlic
Leeks, scallions, or onions.
No dairy, or cheese
From cows. Have to eat grunions.
This one likes butter,
So give him his fill,
But no-one gets nuts..
And shellfish? - it kills.

Lethality skates
Throughout all the cookbooks.

And the cook loses it.

.

Come to Thanksgiving. Get saltines.

Chocolate?  Makes tongues burn
So do we serve pancakes?
No - that one is gluten free.

Untaint us.

A rectifying tradition: a father and mother in law, now departed, who set out little cruets of fine sherry at dessert time.  Poke holes in your pumpkin pie with your fork, and when the sherry acruets are passed, dribble and drench all you like.  And they were Quaker, would you believe. Yes.  Believe.

The Socialist Mop. Algae Opposition. Opp. for Malama Clean-up.

The Country's Clean-Up Continues.

Can MALAMA Survive on the Mainland 

I. The Concept of Malama

II.  The Alternatives
III.  A Small Play about The Socialist Mop

Among the nation's issues: We have an Invasive Algae Problem in Politics, Profiteering and Finance. Clean-up requires new measures. Algae is not easy to eradicate.  It comes back. It grows when conditions resume as favorable to its regrowth.  We leap to attack, regulate, scrub, excise: to no avail. Like the fishtank - the goo returns.

Look to another culture for a longer term approach. The word for it is odd to our ears, one suitable for Scrabble, not reform. Here it is: a green approach,  not harsh chemicals, as a solution with overall application: Malama.  

What?  Malama. New Tool: Hawaiian-Style "MALAMA."  That is an approach that nurtures long-lasting change, a worldview even, and one alien to the mainland and partisans anywhere.

The acronym itself, MOP, stands for  Marine Option Program. a course of study re invasive algae, death of the coral reefs, use of malama and super-suckers.  The program is at the University of Hawaii, see ://www.hawaii.edu/mop/site/. Find out there how to remove invasive algae with malama.  The curriculum: see://windward.hawaii.edu/MOP/mop_history.htm/  The algae accumulates and kills the coral reefs.

To be considered in the context of the Socialist Mop, a topic op for grabs.

Recently, President Obama joked, that some of his critics complain of the pace and tools used in the financial mop-up underway, charging that he is (gasp) using a socialist mop. See ://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/16/us/politics/politics-us-obama.html/ We follow one of its strands here.

Exploring the nature of and tools for mop-ups. 

What works and what doesn't and why, what is the role of labels.

I.  THE CONCEPT 

Malama.

1. Malama is a Pacific islands kind of worldview. An attitude. A framework. See ://www.managingwithaloha.com/2005/03/mlama.html/ It is attack avoidance, in order to set the stage for broader remedies in solving overall problems, less intrusive to the individuals, less damaging. Malama does not exclude a focused approach where needed, of the more forceful kind, but - again - all will be well thought out, in full context. Malama is the wisdom of indigenous people surpassing the Great Westerns, is that so?  Perhaps.

Malama.  

A Vengeance-less Approach.
Minimize the Animus in Problem-Solving

From the Hawaiian lexicon. Specifically as to Hawaii,

• Malama is an idea, a concept, from indigenous peoples of the Pacific, taking various forms.  It is also a collection of groups and individuals working together to make Hawaii, in particular, healthful and safe, see ://www.malamahawaii.org/about_us.html. A recent focus is clean up of invasive algae, to let the coral reefs breathe again - the reefs, as elsewhere, are dying.
  

• To "malama" as a verb.

2. To malama is to protect, care for, see http://www.malamahawaii.org/.

• Malama as a business model: fair use quotation from Managing with Aloha, Malama, at ://www.managingwithaloha.com/2005/03/mlama.html

Mālama

To Mālama is to take care of, to serve and to honor, to protect and watch over. Thus Mālama is thought of as the benevolent value of stewardship. In business it refers to the utmost care of all business assets, with particular caring for the human assets. Acts of caring drive us to high performance levels in our work with others: we give and become unselfish.

How to use the malama concept and technology?  Watch it here. The Malama concept and organization is already a focal point approach in Hawaii for use in collecting invasive algae that is killing the coral reefs, using a mini Super-Sucker, and that is more efficient than using mere volunteers or divers on their own, see ://malamamaunalua.org/alien-algae-clean-ups.asp/  Yet the concept remains:  Do it with malama.  Do the least intrusive, the least harmful approach, but focus with force just as needed (the super-sucker). The supersucker is fine when needed. Still is within the philosophy, mindset of  "malama".

Why do I think of the ideal of "vengeance-less" here.  Is that what malama is all about? Doing what needs to be done, without animus, with respect. even for what is being expunged.

"Malama" and the vengeance-less life. Can there be vengeance-less communities? Can they ever prevail over time against the takers.

Malama is also, incidentally, a name, and here, a person making paddles, see ://www.malamapaddles.com/; and an orientation to life, see ://www.noogenesis.com/malama.html/. 

Hawaii is President Obama's home state. Did he learn the approach there?  Is that what he is doing by holding back on the big stick?  Can we apply malama on the mainland?
Whether any approach to problem-solving other than the explosive macho (blowing the opposition out of the water by propaganda, labeling or outright destruction), should ever be used by self-respecting governments or people.  This appears to have nothing to do with long-term efficacy, or change in mind-set as to causes; but provides the immediate satisfaction of the boom. The one who wins, wins. The one who loses, undermines the one who wins.

II.  OTHER VIOLENCE-MINIMIZING ALTERNATIVES
TO PROBLEM-SOLVING


A. Volunteerism - 

A Task-Oriented Idea; Even Where Sequential.
Takes Continuity and Appreciation to Succeed

Another way to mop up what is left undone is volunteerism, recently promoted by this President Obama and former President Bush I, and others.
.

Volunteerism: President Obama and former President Bush I promoting a form of malama

Many here voice approval of volunteerism, but see it as wimpy, and some volunteers come to feel exploited. Is that so?  The freebie worker has less clout, is not in on the decision-making?
Another is malama, a Hawaiian, indigenous mindset approach.  

 B.  Indirection: 

Here, A Way of Attack
Under the Radar


Planned, Focused Force. 
Meet Liddell Hart.

The mop-up by focused force, when carefully planned;  and indirection when that kind of force can be avoided.

See Basil Liddell Hart.  Liddell Hart was a strategist and man of many trades and skills who advocated from the direct side in, for example, 1) using tanks as their own battle strategy, the blitzkrieg, and not just as support (the Germans adopted this in WWII to great effect), see ://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWliddel.htm/; and from the indirect side in 2) exploring the efficacy of the opposite of the blitzkrieg, indirection.  The indirection is not passivity, not fright; but a well thought-out plan. See biography at ://www.answers.com/topic/basil-liddell-hart/

Liddell and malama:  With his idea of the efficacy of indirection, we think he would applaud where the approach is well-thought out strategically. No direct opposition, but a totality, respect despite disagreement, exploring choices, a full circumstance assessment, with incremental steps. Never shut the door. Act without opponents, address issues and behavior, but leave personal dignity intact. Even find some way to praise someone for something, even though that person is an avid no-holds-barred critic, no World Wrestling type theatrical thumping.

C.   VET 'em ALL

Ask whether, if the quieter mop-up is chosen, there are precedents to success (yes, the Hawaiian model of "malama" ).  Whether a Hawaiian, indigenous belief system that includes cooperation, minimal adverse intrusions, and personal responsibility, a well as the helping hand, can ever make inroads in a force-warfare country that turns its own religions' tenets into armed camps.

III.  Now:  Play It Out

Say some lines, speak, see it happen. Absorb the idea. Take a break, and do a presentation for yourself. Get the mirror and let the elocution begin.

The Socialist Mop In Action

A Little Obamatic Play.

Changer With Mop, and the Changees opposing; apply Malama and prevail; and 

Stage Prop for Socialist Mop, with algae. Note the wear-down at the drain. So much to do that the tiles tilt, like relativity.

Cast of Characters:

• "THEY".  The Algae Chorus. Those benefiting now, oppose change, and have the funds and PR networks to persuade people unawares. The entrenching of privilege or ideas is as difficult to disturb as algae.  Leave it alone too long, and it is hard to get rid of.  Let it find a wetty warm spot, and it creeps over. And over.  Coral beneath?  Its welfare? No mind.  A little mold here, a little calcification there, not where we sleep? Let it be.

.

Clean-up time. Reformville.

• Mystery figures. Those seeking change, but who may well not have amassed funds, or comparable PR techniques, organization, or broad base of education to press for change.

• "HE": Representing the Mopper and Mop Support.  The Malamatically inclined. Those with an affinity for malama constitute a third group, those who may be benefiting now, but see the need for inclusion, education, of others. But the fist in face is distasteful, and they know that violence breeds violence, and has short-lived results most of the time.  They find malama to be a great resource. For them, the long-term change is in mindset, worldview.  Direct opposition ultimately fails because of the slow, humble, steady beat of malama.

A  SMALL  PLAY on MOPS

Pre-Curtain. People are reading the paper, expectant at a new interchange between the newly labeled socialist mop, and the algae.  See ://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/16/us/politics/politics-us-obama.html/ Just trying to mop up and somebody accuses the Changer of using a socialist mop? Ain't free speech grand.

CURTAIN: RISES

HE

(holding mop, wiping and wringing with energy):
Just mopping up the mess left around here. Look at the algae. All over everything. And where is the coral. Can hardly see it. Anybody alive under there?                                    

THEY

(holding money bags and media ownership buttons):
You're holding that mop all wrong. Drop that mop. We hope you DROP THAT MOP. We want you to DROP THAT MOP.

.

HE

Sure is a lot of algae around here. Clean up. Clean up. Let the coral breathe.
(figures start to come onstage, watching from the sides)

THEY

Hey. That's a socialist mop.

.

Opponent of Socialist Mop, self-defined. From Castle Play, Bojnice, Slovakia.

.

HE

A what??

.

THEY

A socialist mop. Invented by socialists, used by socialists.*

HE

Government doesn't own the mops. How can it be a socialist mop?  Government doesn't want to own this mop. You've got labels going around. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD. Spread like mold. Get that stuff down the drain.
.

Financial clean-up working well. No algae.

One-two-three. Go together. Seed one, you seed them all. I just see a job that needs a mop to clean it up. If this mop works, I'll use it.  Lots of different kinds of mops around to help do it. **  Will you join in here.

THEY

This is our reef. Had it to ourselves for years. We like it this way.

HE

I'm just getting started. Watch, then. And this mop's doing the job. I'll be done soon. Not tired at all. Could you move, please, if you're not getting on and have nothing of your own to offer?

THEY

Hey. Keep that mop out of this corner. That's our corner. For us. You mop here, we won't give you credit. Governor here won't put the signs up. Let people think the governor did it.

HE

You mean we do all this clean-up and you let people think you did it?  We'll just keep mopping. Come to think of it, just might need the mini super-sucker ***  for this job. Reef's really clogged up. Can't breathe.

(More figures come onstage, stack up super-sucker boxes)

THEY

Get out of that other corner with that mop. That's for us, too. You clean up here, and competition will get in. Can't have that. We like our antitrust. In 1945, it was a very good year.  We worked hard to set ourselves up.

HE

There's another mop over there. Care to help clean up this mess?  If you won't, we'll get some volunteers. Malama is catching. Coral is dying all over the place. (figures start to help)

THEY

Nope. Like it as it is. We're fine. We hope you drop that mop. Somebody! Make him drop that mop!

(figures open up super-sucker boxes)

.

HE.

Just getting started. Hop out of the way of this mop. Today the mop, tomorrow, the malama.
(offstage - a giant sucking sound)

THEY, in CHORUS

A-a-a-a-rr--g-g-gh-h-h-h
(slink warily from stage, but still holding money bags)(coral gets up, looks around)

HE:

Door's always open (patiently keeps mopping, including in the corners) Maybe have to look into a claw-backer in addition to this mop. Hmmmm.

CURTAIN

Applause is Huge

From the Playbook program:

History, Variations and Acronyms of MOP's

*  History of Mops

Thomas W. Stewart. Our modern mop was invented by an African-American named Thomas W. Stewart of Kalamazoo, Michigan, patent awarded June 13, 1893. It included with yarn, clamper system and release. See ://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Mop.html/; and //www.mopbucketandwringer.com/wetmopinformation.html  A wringing device also available. Did he make any money?
 .
Peter Vosbikian. Then, an immigrant to America from Europe before WWI invented the sponge mop with its metal pressing device.  That was one Peter Vosbikian, and his invention is dated in 1950. Then, in 1999, ScotchBrite, an American company, developed a sponge mop using cellulose and polyester - faster drying.
The mop was alluded to (where?) in Roman times.  On TV, we later saw other fancy twisting mops.
.................................................
**  Variations of mops

In addition to the sponge head, there is the rag mop, the looped end mop, and the cut end mop.  RAGG - Retrofitters Against General Good (see freedictionary site, below) and arrive at Ragg Mopp Doodley AH-Be Yada. See socialist version at ://www.youtube.com

................................................................

*** MOP Acronyms.

See a listing at ://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Movement+of+Personnel; including

• MOP - Movement of Personnel

Use the mop to get rid of people? Or replace, displace, displease them while doing.

• MOP - Measure of Performance, Most Outstanding Player, Manner of Performance, Military Op,  Manager of Projects, Management Oversight Panel, and on and on.

/watch?v=VA0OKd3PvTs&feature=player_embedded/

Heal, Teach, Include. Ted Kennedy's Legacy . A Triangle of Principles.

Another branching, gone. New growth coming?

.

How to Frame a Life.

.

Look to the Manner, 

as Well as the Accomplishments.

.

The Kennedy Trilogy Approach:

Whatever the task du jour,

.

 Heal, Teach, Include.  

.

How to look at a legacy. Here, a three-sided approach to Senator Ted Kennedy's contribution to our country.

Some things in any life fall apart.  The issue is what does the person do afterward. What qualities emerge in greater strength. Twist, or growth.

Looking back at Senator Ted Kennedy, we see three areas that grew with time and became guiding principles in his manner:  To heal, to teach, and to include.  No matter the objective at the time, he sought to promote better functioning in health, and relationships, education about issues, and inclusiveness.  No individual or group left behind - and he would have gone a step further:  to work out the means, the funding as circumstances would permit, to get the job done  Bravo. 

The Rule of Three. Just as a three-legged stool is firm, this framework for government and society is stable, and forward-looking. Add another triple -  Implement with respect and good humor, and sensible persistence.  And enjoy.

For those of us, who are materially strong, or mentally exploratory by way of attitude, there is one main obstacle to doing that ourselves:  the cultural obsession with competition, hierarchy, self-promotion, one-up, ruin you.
 .
Instead:  Heal. Teach. Include. Is that the message?

Some people are gifted: know how to put the pieces together to get the job done

.

Jefferson championed education in in particular. “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Ghost voice. If we do set out to heal, teach, include, what if the ones we plan to benefit take advantage. What if they get lazy, ask the bean-counters.  Why risk what is mine, on such as those over there. Why give them something for nothing.

What would Kennedy say:  We think he would say that what other people do is their purview; what we do, is ours. Do it for yourself. He tried a skewed life, it didn't work, so he changed, and with help. There is a legacy right there.

Ghost voice. Why should I help those folks get on their feet?  They might compete if they had health, education, inclusion.  What if we are not superior? For opponents of healing, teaching, inclusion, is this part of the fear.  That it means change in social structure, loss of position.

What would Kennedy say:  He might mention the idea of timeliness, and fairness -  unjust enrichment stares us in the face. After all, time's up.  Are we the ones who have kept those others in the sheds of our yards, by our policies, by our hierarchies, and supremacy-ideas, out of the capitalist tradition that we so tout:  by taking advantage of their illness, lack of education, exclusion. 

Is that so?

Ghost voice.  This is a recession. Folks out of work. I need to look for the next job.

Kennedy:  Yes - but without health, education, inclusion, everyone is held back. What can you do when noone is looking, slip in and do those things. Do it even without expectation of specific profit.

Blasphemy.

Must that be so fearsome? to allow others the path we were given. Did you inherit?  The fortunate un-deserving. Your nest egg laid before you were born, or carefully nurtured during other lives.  Is that so?

Then people can compete, attain self-sufficiency. We prefer the Kennedy approach to improving all our lots, in manner, and goals. Health, education, inclusion.

That works, instead of, for example, honing techniques to churn opinion, a Rush to Judgment about others. Who will mourn that passing. What healing, teaching, and including, has that life fostered. Will anyone come, except to gawk at people of limited means, lauding the Limbaugh $400,000,000.00 through 2016, see ://www.businessinsider.com/2008/7/rush-limbaugh-gets-400-million-to-rant-through-2016/, amassing at their expense.

Hey-Ho. Anybody home?

.

Food or drink or money have we none. Yet we will be ha-a-a, a-a, a-a-a-apy.... Ha. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness without? Refresher:://www.vibrationdata.com/hey_ho.mp3/
Thx, Ted.  Well done.://www.vibrationdata.com/Harp/I_Wonder.mp3

Demonizing Public Options -- First, Profits. Second, Consumers, Patients, Clients,

Healthcare Insurance Reform

Demonizing the public option. Here, the Dracula Club, Bucharest, Halloween. Teacher of Methods.

.

The role of Demonizing in persuasion management.  
.

Vet emotional appeals.
/

Reconcile the Forces: Reconciliation? There 's a place for it.

1) People - a population needing affordable healthcare coverage;
2) Common sense - that government is indeed better at coordinating nationally, than private competition; and
3) Industry - wanting its old increasing profits at the expense of care.

True of roads, true of healthcare coverage, any policy, legislation proposed. 
George Creel and Edward Bernays Redux.
.

Persuasion management has long been part of our governing and commerce history.   See Woodrow Wilson establish the Committee on Public Information, and set up George Creel, see How America Was Sold On World War, at  ://reason.com/news/show/132682.html,  to get the population behind entering WWI.  Edward Bernays - the father of public relations - at about the same time, or soon after. See Edward Bernays at  ://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_Bernays
 .
Set these in motion:  fear of a powerful other out to get you, we will interpret, your obedience is required.  See ://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.demons.html.  You do not have to think. See Emotional Appeals, Demonizing.
.

Think anyway. When faced with policy choices, explore. Educate yourself about steps already working well.

Can transparency and not reliance on PR clear up the arguments about funding, resources, need. What can be used from elsewhere in the budget?
.

Death panels? Insurmountable funding sources? Vet it all.

The louder the voice, the less truth in it.

.

I. Progress Has Already Been Made
End of Life Consultations Already In Effect
.

A. 1990 Federal Patient Determination Act - End of life information disseminated in medicare-receiving facilities.

Granny is already entitled, by government regulation, to end of life information as part of the care program once she is in a medicare-receiving facility, but not before.

Grandma. Those in nursing facilities receiving medicare already get end-of-life counseling.

See 42 USC 1395 cc(a) from 1990, section 4751; 42 CFR 489.102 - the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Patient Determination Act.See the Act at //www.fha.org/acrobat/Patient%20Self%20Determination%20Act%201990.pdf/.

Do the rest of us get that same information as a regular part of our care? No, because we might actually make a choice that does not serve long-term invasive services; and at our age, long term is lots of years of heroic measures. Is that so?

B. 2008 Healthcare Decisions Day - successful community education among states, groups.

This already happened, with vast encouragement, no nay-saying that we can find. Information, forms, all provided.

Some 75 national organizations in 2008 joined in support, and states including Palin's Alaska (she signed it) issued proclamations for community education about end of life care choices, see ://www.nationalhealthcaredecisionsday.org/UserFiles/File/NHDD/NHDD_release_101507_v4.pdf/.

So: Providing for choice is not so new after all.

1) Laws are already on the books fostering transparency, accountability and choice, that lead to consumer information. Here, for persons in medicare-receiving facilities. End of life consultations already in effect.

2) Common sense supports moving away from the monopoly of private enterprise: government indeed is better at some projects than private. Use the government where similar matters face large populations and where coordinated approaches serve the common good.

3) The issue becomes how to work with industries and professions in transition - whose traditionally increasing profits at the expense of care, may be at stake if common solutions are pursued.

Conflict over policy is largely created and exacerbated by obscuring facts, and using inflammatory linquistics. No wonder compromise is difficult. Language ties in to emotional commitment. It is hard to change an emotional attachment to an idea. The words define the response, and get it. The word-labels may have little connection to a likely reality. Is that so?

Topics: End of Life. Commerce. Health Insurance, Socialism in Care. Other Areas.

4) When to Reform Anyway? Despite Them. Do that when there is no movement toward re-framing, toward re-wording, re-linguisting the issues and behaviors. Then do it despite them. A good time is after a nice vacation. Let the bread rise a while after the kneading.

====================================

.

A. 1990 Federal Patient Determination Act

Achieving Rights of Patients to Direct the Scope and Nature of their Care

It is already law. Is that news to you? Then ask why you were not told by your chosen champions. Look up

.

Strides toward a goal. Many already made. Here, Joan.

.
End of life is a complex time: compassion, heroic treatments, when to apply and when not, see the issues of palliative care vs. cure at NYT, At The End, Offering Not a Cure but Comfort at ://www.painmedicationnews.com/2009/08/20/at-the-end-offering-not-a-cure-but-comfort-new-york-times/25167/
.
From the Town Hall conflicts, you would think that care planning is a new and threatening idea - the death panels. But Granny already gets it as part of the public government medicare - so is entitled to information denied the rest of us as a regular part of our care. She already has reform.

• The pity is that even she is not entitled to the information, as a regular part of her care, until she enters the medicare-receiving facility. By the time of her admission, it may be too late to make reasoned choices.

But at least the ground is already broken on the value of end of life information, as part of a regular course of care planning.

• Note that we, and any other people not in those medicare-receiving places, can be kept in the dark about choices, because we are in "private" life. No one can compel the health insurers or providers to disclose more information than they want. Some are responsible, others not. How to tell. It is only with the government involvement (medicare received by the facility) that disclosures can be required.

We may stay in the dark, in our private healthcare arrangement, if our own doctors or others do not discuss living wills. Then, finally, when we are admitted to those places unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, and cannot say "Stop!" those who substitute for us - a nephew, a doctor, a judge - can keep us going, and going, and going, as long as the bleeps blip and the drips drip.

• Why did industry let the end of life consultations in as to the elderly in facilities?

There is minimal profit impact in giving information to people who will dwindle anyway. The old folks are old. Healthcare providers and insurers may be willing to let people in on the secrets of a dignified end, when they are already of medicare age, but not before when it counts more years.

• So, the younger of us, or the more independent of the older, do not get that same information as a regular part of care, choosing the scope or nature of treatments. There is maximum profit impact if we decide to have our plugs pulled. Think of the years wasted, where people could be making money off our prone, senseless selves, and we were only 45 when the cataclysm hit.

B. 2008 Healthcare Decisions Day

Enabling Patients to Direct the Scope and Nature of Their Care

Look up the 2008 Healthcare Decisions Day. A national effort, already engaged in productively. States, including Alaska, and sponsors have already fostered community education about end of life. See Proposed Joint Congressional Resolution, Federal Healthcare Decisions Day, a recommended followup.
.
Is that really some 75 national organizations supporting? Never heard of it. FN 1 Why is this fact of broad support denied even by its supporters, and the issue of regularly given and compensated end of life information set out as fearful.

• Information for people who might benefit is demonized because people with information may make choices that reduce profits. Is that so?

Disseminating information. A fearsome topic for marketers in an era where ignorance of the consumer is depended upon for profit. Look at the efforts to prevent a consumer from learning what might be in a consumer's best interest. Transparency is opposed by industries, groups, that benefit from consumer ignorance. See opposition to labeling ingredients in food, opposition to clarity in lending practices, credit cards, and in offering choices for people in their health insurance that may put public interest ahead of private profit, is that so?
.

Let the group that is already in care, nearest death, actuarially, have information about end of life care, as we do. But do not let it out to those younger or more independent. No transparency and information to consumers; and hoard the profits.

• Informed Client Consent: Truth in lending, truth in choices, truth in disclosures.
  

No chance without an enforceable obligation for choice, so people have an alternative and can walk away; and to give information fully and fairly. So far, we here support a public option for health insurance, but have no illusions about the obstacles to getting full and fair information out about it. Hold back the info. Better yet, arm people with labels and set them up in a circle. Then say, Fire.

The Hoard Instinct. Trigger it easily by conjuring threat without thought. Say threat and it will be felt. The magic of getting to emotion before giving out facts.

.

End of life care library for those not yet on medicare. Heh, heh.

C. Why are these steps not common knowledge?

Ignorance is the New Political and Commercial Commodity.

If you did not know those laws and nation-wide efforts to increase patient participation in their end of life decisions, why not? Because too much profit depends on consumer ignorance, so consumers will buy an idea or a product before they are fully informed. Is that so? If they had information, perhaps they would not buy.

.
The idolizing of profits has become a crusade so that the public interest carries no weight. Crusade - an emotional involvement based on faith, and armed by those in power, and with designated evildoers at the other end. We are trading on ignorance of choices and information, preventing facts from coming out for profit.

Without information, how does a consumer know whether his or her interest is being served. Aha. That is the point. Crusade and enlist support, so that some of the enlistees end up beating up their own interests, exploited. How do we know when or if that is happening. We don't, unless all the information is out. And that will never happen. Profit protection. Or compel disclosure in the interest of the consumer. Transparency.

Consumer and crusaders. Having such a good time making the crusaders money. Illustration from Malbork, Poland.

II. Fact check. Opposition to choice

How did opinions become so polarized so fast. Linguistics, and complexity of issues. Linguistics can hold a door open to discussion, or slam it. Inertia likes itself. It is easier to stay put than to move, easier to demonize those seeking a direction that is new. Can we find assets and income by reallocating funds from the present dysfunctional prison system would work. People come out worse, so why keep them in that setting. We could do that, if we let facts come out, and not extreme language to block them.

Information. If people have it, and discuss it, they might come up with solutions.

The dreaded Spin Spider. Guardian of the information cache. No consumer shall pass. Here, Bilbao.

.
Language can ease people into compromise, so a broader range of behaviors are okay.

Some have found that possible even in extremes of religious expression vs. secularism. See Pragmatic Religion and the Unknown Thinker. There, views are reconciled by a careful use of bridging language, concepts, for that author taking a midground; without demonizing either extreme.

End of life involves similar issues. Different emphases, interpretations, choices. It is economic philosophy-myth (both sides), or invasion of profits. Or religious, values, morality. Still, a public option, under discussion despite labels, even implementing Medicare for All, despite misapplication of "socialism", can indeed serve public good. Let information out - for reasoned discussion, and choice. Are we beyond recall. Discuss.
.

III. Understanding Economic Fear:

People may actually want a public option, and to challenge private industry. So?

That happened with the plowhorse, too. The ultimate question to ask if businesses are going belly-up: Do we really need them? Did we really need them, or their product, the way they market it.

If those profits that we enable the companies to make, do not add to the quality of our care and autonomy as part of a private system, why should those private industries continue to feed on us without our consent. Consent means there are other choices, and we are aware. If we can let banks fail for disservice, why not health insurance companies.

Examine profits. Categorize the concept: a marketplace facilitator, or a disease, or a religion, or an addiction, or a delusion as to benefit for anyone else when they stratosphere beyond sense. Warp. Warped. Warp as part of the woof, and the fabric of our lives. Can it be changed.

There is little reason to think that people with information will make poor decisions - but there is reason to think that people with information will make decisions in their own interest, not that of the purveyors.

No public option. Consumer of health insurance.

,

So, keep out information. Enter, buyer beware. Is that the issue here. Is it a large part of the objection to a public option in health insurance reform - because then the government can require that clients be informed.
.
Secrecy fosters exploitation. .

How is that not so?

Do not let the people choose. How does lack of choice help us? Participation in government funding would require recipient businesses to communicate with clients, patients, consumers and provide information. That obligation is not here in private business. Is that it? Private companies can keep quiet so a person does not know what is in his or her best interest?

So, they oppose the public option because it requires disclosures that may affect profits, as well as offer economies that permit lower prices in health insurance; or disclose where money is being used not for care.

Consumer protection in banking: same opposition, same reasons. Oppose labeling, any disclosure beyond minimum, same opposition, same reasons.

We support the strong Public Option, and even Medicare for All or single payor, but that may be asking too much.
.
Time to storm the castle. Profits well walled. Here, Sedan, France.

There will never, we believe, be support for consumer transparency in commerce or healthcare, a branch of it. So, go ahead and do it.
.
This examination of opposition and the bases for their conclusions is increasingly necessary. Even the Wall Street Journal has fallen into the trap of Failing to Research. It warns about fabled death panels connected to discussions of end of life choices, see Jim Towey's Death Book for Veterans, at ://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html/. Yet, our laws have provided for that kind of counseling for years, in Medicare facilities, and it has worked well. Even states and grass rooters supported a Healthcare Decisions Day in 2008.

Wall Street Journal: Are you writing with your financial tentacles in mind? Time to consider financial interest of legislators in their voting, and Weight the Vote. Compulsory recusal threshhold, anyone?

What if people learn that their favorite talking head or quasi-journalist has been bought, is an ideologue and not providing neutral information. What if they learn that their health care system is 37th in the world, http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html; and that healthcare can indeed be remedied with reforms by reprioritizing how we allocate resources. For some, there go the profits, and there goes the ballgame, so fight it and spin it. The good news is that we have many steps forward already in end of life care information, and in government-insured care - elders in facilities get it. Communities already have made progress. Yet media ignores facts, promotes entertainment and opinion wars. Is that so, and need we accept it.

IV. Explore on your own.

You will have to because media provides mostly opinion-laced entertainment, not information.

Public Option. Even medicare for all.

Labels. Get beyond them to what solves the problem.

You are as good as Granny. You deserve what she gets. It is financially necessary. It improves the productivity of people, and that serves the economy. Is that sensible? Bring tent.
.
Have some fun. Meet Bill Maher on all this. Don't fear the labels of liberal or conservative; fear ignorance of disclosure issues between public option and private enterprise instead. See ://www.theliberaloc.com/2009/07/25/bill-mahers-new-rules-profits-and-healthcare/. President Obama's de-identification with the issue of public options for the health insurance reform is a wise one, even as a trial go. This issue is for the people to focus on and on their own, debate each other, without the distractions of a heavily PR'd industry framework just saying no.
.
Ideas evolving. This site edits all the time. Online versions change. Words will out. Life is tough, O Crawlers. Minds change. Often.Good.

Education, ReAssessment

On your Marx. What aspects of ideas actually work, to solve certain problems. Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf? Here, Chemnitz, Germany

The entrenched just say no to any framework to solve problems that affect whole populations, and that require a coordinated response; and put forth none of their own..

Go back to Marx, then. How many know what his ideas really were? Have they read up? Re-explore if "socialism" is a blanket pejorative. England says no - they like what they have, and the positive response. See BBC America's Katty Kay support the option - at://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090621034527.aspx

Look up the Big Marx - try this overview of his life and thinking at ://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-marx.htm/ He saw a struggle between the classes (he was born in 1818) that showed itself especially in the means of production - workers vs. owners, etc. Sound familiar? Rulers and subordinates. Different interests. How to reallocate power and decisionmaking to serve entire peoples, not just those at the top. He saw exploitation, and his ideas evolved into communal solutions, communism, socialism - the big Isms. But noone is saying to transplant those here. We can use his analysis, however, and recognize and try to resolve the ongoing problem.

Do we dare even look up "socialism" and see what "socialists" say today? Sneak a look at ://www.socialismtoday.org/44/marx.html/ You may not want the entire chicken pot pie recipe offered, but parse out the best ingredients, alter the proportions, and make your own Cornish pastie.
.
Who else speaks to the needs of today? Don't take what your motivational politicians say. Look it up yourself.

• "If you never change your mind, why have one?"
  
• "Creativity involves breaking out of established patterns in order to look at things a different way."
  

Edward de Bono, see://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_you_never_change_your_mind-why_have_one/296578.html/; and ://www.edwarddebono.com/Default.php/. Or ://www.edwarddebono.com/about.htm/ Creative thinking. Revisions with new perspectives. See ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za3wKYFUdVQNeeded./ Even if rocky.

So: Self-interest in politics. Shall we require disclosure of financial interest and weight the vote?. A vote by a legislator with no financial interest in a healthcare institution, or insurance company, counts 100%. A vote by someone with such financial interest counts 10%; or other measure.


....................................................................

FN 1 See participants at ://www.nationalhealthcaredecisionsday.org/UserFiles/File/NHDD/NHDD_release_101507_v4.pdf/ See the States with resources, http://www.nationalhealthcaredecisionsday.org/resources.htm/. Ten states issued proclamations in support. See ://www.nationalhealthcaredecisionsday.org/overview/. Thirty-one states fostered state liaisons. Activities were held in all 50 states.

See Proposed Joint Congressional Resolution, Federal Healthcare Decisions Day; and the information on 42 CFR 489.102 - the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Patient Determination Act. Go read it. Change your mind.