The Catholic Church Interferes With Health Reform

The Catholic church has now jumped on the bandwagon of those entities who, for some reason or another, feel entitled to dictate the terms of the health care reform legislation. Not only are these "special interests" being given a hands-on role in shaping laws that will affect every single one of us, they are supplanting the voices of regular Joes and Janes.

Unlike the insurance industry, big pharma, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. who put their money where their mouths are, the Catholic church is wielding clout without spending a penny. According to an AP article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, bishops managed to get language restricting abortion coverage into the legislation merely by threatening to influence the voting behavior of Catholics.

I have never liked the way the Catholic religion treats women. I am sure that there are many of the opinion, like myself, that the true position of this church and many "pro-lifers" is less a genuine concern for the zygote/embryo/fetus in question and more a desire to control the woman harboring it. Even though these bishops are all old men who will never have to face such an issue, they certainly seem to consider themselves experts on the subject. There are other niggling concerns about their involvement: Since they don't pay taxes, what gives them the right to try to influence legislation? Also-and this is a biggie-have they never heard of the "separation of church and state"?

This concern for "innocent life" comes from an organization that knowingly allowed and enabled pedophiles to masquerade as clergy in order to satisfy their perverted cravings, ruining countless young lives in the bargain. For decades after, as well, the Catholic church used parishioners' donations to pay out as hush money to keep this whole sordid affair secret. Only when victims reached adulthood and decided to seek redress through the courts did the whole business get a good airing. So much for saving innocent lives.

Of course, none of these interests could have such influence if they were not allowed to by our own government. Obama promised change, but so far Big Industry and Big Government are still indistinguishable. Now we can add Big Religion. I don't know about you, but this isn't exactly the type of change I'd envisioned.

It Takes a SWAT Team to Raid a Massage Parlor

A week or so ago, our local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, reported that two small massage therapy businesses in Hadley, MA had been raided because of reports of "sex for pay". The articles, written by Ben Storrow and Owen Boss, described a multi-agency effort to put a stop to this illicit behavior. Not only were Hadley police involved, but also MA State Police, U.S. Immigration and Customs, the U.S. Department of Diplomatic Security as well as at least one Agawam police Detective. A neighbor and eyewitness described the raid as consisting of "20 cruisers, guys with shields...and guns drawn". All this manpower to arrest two middle-aged Chinese women. Is it just me, or does this seem like overkill?

Often, police do not know what they are getting into, so it is best to be prepared. In this case, however, they knew exactly what they were up against. The raids were the culmination of a sting operation in which two officers, one the Agawam Detective and the other a state trooper, posed as customers at two separate locations in Hadley. Both officers reported getting a massage, then being asked about "being happy" or "getting more massage". Each of these questions was enhanced, according to these officers, by "suggestive gestures" (perhaps of the nudge-nudge, wink-wink variety) on the part of the two Chinese women. Some talk of compensation for these additional services was discussed, but since the officers refused, the services were not rendered.

The paper showed a photo of these women leaving the courthouse after their arraignments. They looked to be about 98 pounds apiece, at the most. So, what were the guns and shields for? Were the police afraid the women might lunge at them, fingers poised to massage their nether regions against their will? Certainly, they knew they were up against masseuses, not drug dealers. It doesn't appear that they wore armor when they visited the sites prior to the raid.

How did this investigation start? Presumably, someone must have complained, though the articles made no mention of this. Anyway, I can't imagine why a customer on the receiving end of these "massages" would report them. It wasn't the neighbors interviewed, either, as none of them had any idea that anything of that sort was going on. Hopefully, our tax dollars aren't being spent sending officers to massage parlors on the off chance that they might be offered a "happy ending"!

I realize that selling sex is illegal, even though this was not sex, per se (at least not according to Bill Clinton's definition). Some would consider this a "victimless" crime. I believe that in the absence of oversight and regulation that legal standing would provide, however, all prostitutes are victims. Who would make a career choice like that, if there were other options? I do hope that the myriad of law-enforcement agencies use their vast resources to find out who is using these women for their own gain. I wonder how many cops it will take to arrest them?

Senate Refuses to Consider Health Care Bill

Now that the House has finally passed the landmark health care bill, the Senate has stopped it dead in its tracks. Why? Because it contains the dreaded "public option", which would give all Americans a publicly-funded alternative to those vultures we call "private health care insurers". Why is this a bad thing? In the words of Joe Lieberman, I-CT, it's "a matter of conscience". Is this the same "conscience" that allowed Lieberman to accept approximately $1.5 million from the health care industry over the past few years? Give us a break.

According to an Associated Press article by R. Alonzo-Zaldivar, the problem that many Senators see with the bill is the idea of a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. Well, it's about time they have some competition, wouldn't you think? Since they've been protected by their friends in high places from just such a debacle up to now, it certainly seems overdue. Of course, we never heard any conservatives railing against that issue during tirades about the "socialist" tendencies of a public option health insurance entity.

Earlier today, I heard yet another conservative senator stating that a public option would cause such a crippling national debt that successive generations would never be able to pay it off. Well, maybe our congresspeople could donate their contributions from lobbyists toward that end. Seriously, though, do you remember hearing any of this kind of talk while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being planned? Or when our elected representative handed over nearly $800 billion in corporate welfare checks to inefficient, mismanaged mega-corporations? They passed that package so fast, I'm not sure there was even time to print all the rules and regulations involved. Which, I guess, is why there weren't any.

Lieberman also stated that he was against a public option for fear that it would become a large, expensive entitlement program. Well, shame on us for feeling as if we, as citizens of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, are entitled to guaranteed health care coverage--even though we would be paying for it ourselves. Corporate bailouts? Now, there's an entitlement program!

It's Official: The Bailout of GM Was a Bad Idea

The Government Accounting Office released a study last week that officially stated what many have known for months: The $50 million given to General Motors to get the company back on its feet may as well have been flushed down the toilet. Since GM has been in bankruptcy since summer, I suppose we taxpayers shouldn't be very surprised. And, compared with the gigantic bailout of the financial industry, GM's freebie seems like peanuts. However, every million counts in this economy, and I know I wouldn't turn down 50 million big ones because the amount seemed too measly. I'll bet you wouldn't, either.

If GM had actually made an effort, perhaps this news wouldn't sting so much. Besides hammering its employees to give up pay and benefits (not a requirement for the financial bailout, mind you), the automaker seemed anxious to accelerate its downfall. Right off, GM began closing 20% of its dealerships. Now, if you need to make money fast, does it make sense to close down the purveyors of your product? Next, it forced those with dual dealerships to choose between GM and the other product. Our local paper interviewed one of those dealerships, who, exercising good business sense, choose Volkswagen over GM. Much has been made over Chevy's new Volt, a plug-in hybrid. Remember, though, that GM is also the car maker who had the brass to market a vehicle like the Hummer. In my opinion, that alone should have made them ineligible for taxpayer assistance.

Now the government tells us that even as they were handing out these funds, they knew they would never be repaid. To do so would have required GM to attain a market value that they couldn't sustain even in better times. At 61% (versus 10% of Chrysler), the government's holding is too large for it to simply break even on this "investment".

Meanwhile, Ford Motors, the only automaker to decline a handout, is turning itself around, and showing a profit. It seems that there is a lesson to be learned here. The question is, will anybody pay attention?

Another Step Back for Gay Equality

Yesterday's popular vote in Maine which essentially killed legislation allowing gay marriage in that state was yet one more defeat to those who believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage is long overdue. David Crary, reporting for the Associated Press, states that this has been the result in each of 31 states that have put this issue to a popular vote. The states that currently allow such marriages--Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa--have legalized it through court decisions or legislation. The article goes on to say that 30 other states have enacted bans on gay marriage through the referendum process.

This begs the question of why Americans are using this process to force their opinions on the life choices of others. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this was not the purpose of referendum voting. The separation of church and state keeps the dominant religions from interfering in others' personal choices regarding worship. Why, then, should the dominant paradigm of heterosexual marital unions be portrayed as the only true and legal "marriage"?

As this country struggles through the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression, one also wonders why this is an issue at all. Why should I care if the two men or the female couple down the street get married? It wouldn't impact my life at all; I would still be married, other straight persons would continue to marry or not, as they saw fit. It simply is not a problem, social or otherwise. Could it be that the majority of Americans are so mean-spirited and spiteful that simply keeping others from experiencing rights that they have always enjoyed is the only way that they can feel alive? Gee, I hope not.

Change is always on the horizon, but not completely in the grasp of those who demand equality. Obama has pledged to rescind the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy in effect since Clinton, but has yet to do so. The House recently voted to add assaults on gays to the list of hate crimes, but that is just the first step. Those who now want to dissolve their same-sex marriages find they cannot do so in 45 of these United States, thus being prevented from making another decision about their own lives. Gay rights are simply human rights. When will Americans realize this?

Time to End the Insurance Industry's Free Ride

Very recently, I read a small blurb in the local newspaper regarding legislation being put forth by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. His bill would overturn the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which gives the insurance industry freedom from anti-trust laws. Oh, and lest you think that these guys ever had to play fair, this act was passed to continue this exemption after a Civil War era court decision was overturned, threatening the industry with having to endure competition.

I like to think of myself as pretty well-informed, but this was the first I heard of this little nugget. Not a great admirer of the industry, I've always assumed that they've gotten to where they are today by merely flouting laws that regulate them, much like every other large, PAC-stuffing corporation. But, no. All the time that they have been doing things like refusing to pay claims stemming from Hurricane Katrina and squealing about how "unfair" a public health insurance option would be, they've been playing with a stacked deck. When they were threatening the Obama administration with health care premium spikes if his version of reform went through, they weren't kidding. They can do whatever they want.

It was annoying enough when I thought that this industry played by the same rules as everyone else, but now I'm doubly incensed. How did they get so powerful? Since many laws, both federal and state, require everyday persons to buy insurance for all manner of things, this industry has enjoyed a perquisite like no other. Guaranteed income, and no niggling free-market worries. If you ever wondered why insurance companies are consistently housed in the most opulent buildings, here's your answer.

It's about time that these titans get knocked down a peg or two. Try to imagine how much health care would cost without the insurance companies in the mix. Quite a bit less, I think, since these guys wouldn't have embedded themselves so deeply into an industry that wasn't very, very lucrative. How will we ever find out? A public option, of course. Let's hope that our elected officials can finally see their way through the waves of cash the insurance industry will send their way and put an end to this undeserved special treatment.

Retailers Using Psychology to Boost Christmas Sales

This year, it seems as if stores have decked their malls earlier than ever. Immediately after the first frost, Christmas decorations bloomed at various retailers, nearly squeezing out the Halloween wares. Could it be that merchants, always concerned with the state of the consumer's psyche, are just trying to cheer us up during this deep, dark recession? Alas, no. Apparently, they are trying to "psych" us out in an effort to persuade us to spend those last few pennies on Christmas purchases even as the economy continues to spiral downwards.

An article by Associated Press writer Anne D'Innocenzio describes this marketing strategy. Last year's dismal year-end sales have spawned a new marketing campaign to revive holiday spending: Retro-Christmas. Well, that's what I call it, anyway. Retailers are bringing back memories of Christmas of yore in order to get us to spend more (I'm waxing poetic). Nostalgia sells, as merchants well know. Therefore, it's out with the new and in with the old: Gingerbread houses, classic glass tree ornaments and tartan plaid everywhere you look. This is their plan to make us spend money we don't have. Brilliant!

Actually, I find this all a bit insulting. Unemployment is closing in at 10%, one-third of those applying for loans are getting refused and the U.S. income gap is widening every day. These are undeniable facts, yet these marketing geniuses seem to think that most of us will just throw caution to the wind and stock up on useless do-dads to put under the tree. Perhaps they haven't noticed that consumers have been steadily cutting back on debt and the use of credit cards, two behaviors that bode ill for retailers at Christmas time. More likely, they have noticed and hope to reverse that trend despite the sad fact that there won't be any more money in consumers' wallets come January, when these type of bills come due.

The article quotes a "professor of consumer psychology" at San Fransisco's Golden Gate University as saying, "Nostalgia is a way for people to feel safe". Well, maybe it does if you have a nice cushy academic job teaching "consumer psychology", whatever that is. For the rest of us, however, it's a bit less academic and more real-world. People who are unemployed and can't pay their bills aren't going to be conned into spending funds they don't have simply by walking by a display of pine cones and dripping tinsel. What we really need is Santa to bring us the sort of bonus our government gave the big guys around this time last year. Let's see...$787 billion divided amongst 200 million households... Ho Ho Ho! Now there's a Merry Christmas!