Anthology

Bike Ride

2010-07-11T09:35:00.000-05:00

WHAT?!

2010-06-30T11:18:00.003-05:00

Kagan declines to take side in 'Twilight' debate over Team Edward vs Team Jacob
By ANN SANNER and NATASHA T. METZLER , Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Team Edward or Team Jacob? That's one debate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan steered clear of.
At her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, Kagan was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar about "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" movie, which opened this week. The franchise has a huge following among teenage girls and has sparked debate over whether the tormented heroine Bella should choose Edward the vampire or Jacob the werewolf.
The senator jokingly asked Kagan's thoughts on "the vampire versus the werewolf."
Kagan, who has declined to say how she might rule on issues that could come before the court, dodged this one — presumably on other grounds. She said she hadn't seen the film, and wished the senator wouldn't pose the question.
Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said she realized Kagan "can't comment on future cases. So I'll leave that alone."

No really, I don't get it. Why? This makes me hate the legislature a little more.

Again.

2010-06-09T13:14:00.000-05:00

My center. When I forget myself, this always brings me back.

Peer Review?

2010-05-05T12:39:00.000-05:00

So I'm going to copy and paste a potential opinion piece below. It's about the right length - I can't take it off on any further tangents for space reasons so any suggested expansions would have be minimal, but are there any suggestions before I give this one to the (more general) public?

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

I climbed into my car last week, turned the ignition and strapped myself in. It was several blocks before I realized who Gary Eichten was interviewing that day on Minnesota Public Radio’s Midday program.
Editorial Writer and Columnist Lori Sturdevant was answering questions about the difference between editorial and hard news writing after just having received the prestigious David Graven award for journalism.
“Perfect,” I thought, as I was on my way to Wilshire Elementary in St. Anthony to talk to two classes of third grade students about being a reporter.
“Perhaps I’ll be able to glean some pearls of wisdom from this seasoned veteran.”
But as the discussion began to veer toward political leanings, how many people confuse editorial stories with hard news stories, and whether a journalist should reveal their own biases to the public or the editor should make sure no such biases exist - I began to realize this would never translate to a group of eight and nine year olds.
How could I impress upon them the importance of individual vigilance and getting their information from more than one source instead of just one television show or just one newspaper?
How could I relate to them the cutbacks newspapers are facing with declining staffs and resources, or the fact that not since before the twentieth century has there been a time where there were fewer professional international correspondents than we have today?
And then I was struck with another realization: despite the impossibility of conveying this information to these students, these students are the ones who need it.
It’s probably too late to tell high school students to pick up a second or third newspaper everyday. Too late to lecture adults about the role of an editor, or the difference between an opinion and a news article.
And so I explained the importance of listening, but they were more focused on the ‘what’ portion of the article they were tasked with writing.
They had been given sheets to draft their own news story. At the top was a line for their headline. Below that, there were lines each for their byline, who, what, when, where and why.
“What do I put here?” I was asked by a student pointing to the “what” line.
“What is your story about?” I asked them, trying not to just give away the answer but to encourage them to think about it.
“I put that at the top.”
“Okay, you wrote the subject at the top, the headline should sum up what they are going to read about.”
“That’s what I wrote, what I do I put for what?”
So much for listening.
So when one boy approached me, asking the same question, I felt really defeated.
“What do I put for this,” he asked, again, pointing to “what.”
“Well, what is your article going to tell people about?” I asked him, continuing with the same method as only a crazy person might.
But then his eyes widened and in them I saw understanding - not just grasping the concept but taking it further to the implications of the question.
“Ohhh.” And he lowered his head and began to furiously scribble as his deadline approached. (Later this boy would tell me he was going to go home, take out his notebook and interview people; and I smiled for the Harriet the Spy I had helped encourage.)
And I felt giddy. Giddy! He understood. He listened. And he listened not to exactly what I was telling him, but he listened beyond those words, to their meaning.
And I knew there was hope. You can’t reach every child the same way, but that doesn’t mean you should give up. Kids can pick up detail, infer importance and grasp a deeper meaning, but it takes a community to get them there.
We must encourage inquisitiveness, share the joy in reading, teach the importance of personal responsibility.
It takes a village, it’s not a child's parents. On that day, I was part of St. Anthony’s village.

This seems average to me - that must say something.

2010-04-29T10:57:00.002-05:00

Individuals who usually want to fit in and have interaction with others; they simply don't know how to do it. They may be socially awkward, not understanding of conventional social rules, or show a lack of empathy. They may have limited eye contact, seem to be unengaged in a conversation, and not understand the use of gestures. Interests in a particular subject may border on the obsessive. Children who frequently like to collect categories of things, such as rocks or bottle caps. They may be proficient in knowing categories of information, such as baseball statistics or Latin names of flowers. While they may have good rote memory skills, they have difficulty with abstract concepts.
Children may frequently have good language skills; they simply use language in different ways. Speech patterns may be unusual, lack inflection or have a rhythmic nature, or it may be formal, but too loud or high pitched. Children may not understand the subtleties of language, such as irony and humor, or they may not understand the give-and- take nature of a conversation.
These children may frequently have motor skill delays and may appear clumsy or awkward.

Reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, I began to worry myself. I identified with this character. It wasn't just because the author did such a fantastic job of illustrating the character, I had been there. At one point, the character counts his footsteps - left right left right - to calm himself down. I narrate what I'm doing; getting out of the car for instance: push (seatbelt), off (seatbelt), out (keys of ignition), open (door), out (foot), out (other foot), close (door) etc.
There were other random things too, but not everything fit.

I've never connected to people well, I knew that autism was primarily about making those interpersonal connections. This book inspired me to do some further reading and I came across the above summary of a person with Aspergers.

It's not exactly autism because the person wants to fit in but doesn't know how.

And the avoiding eye contact thing. And the appearing like you're uninterested or not paying attention - people often think of that of me and I've never been able to figure out why. I've worked on looking more like I'm paying attention, but I usually focus on how I look more than what they're saying. With journalism I can focus on writing what they say and looking like I'm listening - then I have to review my notes to see what questions I should ask.

I understand social interactions. I'm just really bad at them and prefer to avoid anything social. I don't care to be around most people, in general.

And I am really bad with empathy. I'm always amazed when someone is like me (empathy, right - understanding from personal experience), like it's brand new every time.

Obviously I function alright, I just wonder how my childhood would have been different if I had been diagnosed with this. I don't think it was as prevalent an issue when I was a child, but had it been, I bet things would have turned out differently for me. I definitely showed the characteristics as a child and my behaviors should have set off alarms for at least some teachers.

Interesting to think about.

More interesting, I think, is the fact that it is so easy to relate to various "disorders" once the label is taken off. "She has Asperger's" feels so different from "She has a tough time in social situations."

One is more specific I guess.

Also interesting is the need to give things a label, a category, and file it away. She has Asperger's, that problem has been solved. Treat her this way because of it.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm all for better understanding, but I'm afraid the label limits that understanding. I know what it is because I know the name for it, is not enough, I think. This is the first time I've ever really read about autism, because I read a book with an autistic character I identified with. Before now I was content with my remedial understanding of autism and knowing that it didn't apply to me.

I'm still forming my own opinions on this one, I just wanted to point out things I found interesting.

Atlas Shrugged. Spoilers

2010-04-26T10:27:00.001-05:00

Well, I did it. I think I started this book in October or November with the intent to finish it by the end of the year. Now, at the end of April, I can finally put it behind me.

I gave this book four stars. Because it made me think and feel so many passionate things, but it wasn't written well and the editing was done even more poorly. Galt's speech at the end - made me like him a little less and I didn't understand Dagny's attraction to Galt beyond the fact that she was supposed to like him.

Also, I think this book would have benefited from being a series; with her flushing out some of the ideas better and removing some of the textbook style speeches. In my head it's broken up into several books - Dagny's history being probably my favorite and her vacation with Rearden another. I mean, it was good enough for Tolkein so Rand could've just gotten over herself and spread it out a little. I don't think Peter Jackson will be tackling these any time soon, and I'm not saying it's because it's one book and not three, but think of the merchandising possibilities she lost out on.

I've talked with Lindsey about this, too, but it's amazing how many parallels I can draw between the way the government is run now and the way things work in her dystopia. The fact that fifty years after being published, her book is still relevant, is amazing. She gets major kudos for that one. Reading this book also reminded me of Ishmael - a book about rejecting traditions. While these ideas may be the unpopular ones, that doesn't mean they are without merit. While it is harsh, ultimately I agree with Rand - everyone should pursue their own interests. I've never believed in altruism, because I do believe in reason and logic. It doesn't make sense for an individual to do something that doesn't benefit them. Giving to charity -- makes you feel a certain way about yourself, theoretically pleasant, and that's why you do it. And if everyone was looking out for their own best interest, everyone's best interests would be looked out for. As for those who are unable - my response is hopefully they have someone who chooses to take care of them. Parents choose to take care of their offspring for whatever selfish (not a bad word) reason they choose because they find some personal gain in it. Thank goodness for families I guess.

I do disagree with one major point. She kept preaching about not forcing the mind. However the PURPOSE of Galt is to FORCE everyone to think like him - or kill them. The breakout scene frustrated me.

But the fact that I thought so deeply about what she was writing and applied the ideas to the world around me, for me, means this is a significant piece of literature that helped shape the person I am. I took it out of the context of her America and held it up to mine to better form my definition of the world.

And isn't it awesome when books do that?

Nerd dream

2010-04-21T08:52:00.002-05:00

So I realized this dream was a good one after I told my sister and she made a face like she was ready to commit me.

I don't remember all of it, but I do remember there were Nazis. And that I was reminiscent of Anne Frank, but still me, so not actually Jewish (that's what all of those jokes about me being a Catholic Jew get me). Nevertheless, the Nazis were still out to get me and I had to travel incognito.

And at the end of the dream, we were at some kind of (literally)underground sci fi convention. Nerds everywhere. And the Nazis had me cornered. Somehow I got the nerds to lift me up and pass me over their heads, as I shouted back to the Nazis, "I'm going to go kill Darth Vader." At this point all the nerds cheered but I stopped them and said, "No, no, I'm not Luke Skywalker." They kept passing me along and I was contemplating the "having to kill your father to become your own man" idea in Star Wars when I woke up.

This may have been the nerdiest dream I have ever had. Analyze THAT one, psych people. I think for this one I'd have to go with Freud - sometimes a nerd is just a nerd.

More context!

2010-04-20T21:42:00.003-05:00

These are my eighth grade poems. Enjoy!

The Wind
The wind can be smooth or rough.
It drifts through the branches of trees
like an imaginary liquid.
It tastes fresh and sweet on a spring day,
but warm and damp on a rainy day.
It sounds like a forgotten tune on a lost harmonica.
It can smell sharp and new, or old and musty.
Wind is the color of the leaves that dance
on its invisible arms.
It is cool like a first snowfall
and it brings relief on a summer day.
The wind looks like the branches
it blows and the leaves that it takes for rides.
It is the shape of the clouds
that it brings to foreign lands.
The wind is a lonely traveler
bringing things together,
whistling a forgotten tune
once heard on a harmonica.

Chef’s Best Friend
If I were a cooking spoon, I’d experience wonderful things.
I’d taste the finest foods and smell the finest scents.
I’d serve automatic dishes and thick and creamy soups. I’d never be hungry and never be bored.
I’d be the envy of every utensil and admired by every pot.

EDITED!

2010-04-19T19:56:00.003-05:00

I realized this needed context. In eighth grade this is the only type of poetry I was capable of writing. As a personal writing exercise, because I feel like I'm getting a little dry, I took an image and expanded it, giving it a context and a story. I'm not writing emo poetry, I'm exercising my writing style. (My favorite one in eighth grade like this was about the wind. Second favorite was a wooden cooking spoon.)

I am a spare couch in the next room.
Worn and faded, but hidden beneath a duvet cover.
The knowledge that I exist is comforting.
The fact that I am safely tucked away,
existing but not enjoyed,
is enough.

Somewhere there is a bright room, with
creaking floors and colorful walls.
A room where my patches match the paint.
My worn cushions are appreciated for their color, texture, and give.
And I fit.

This is of no importance, however.
What is important is that I am safely tucked away,
quietly hidden in the next room.
For you to have, if not to experience.

Fun with pixels -or- I wish I was this cool

2010-04-09T08:49:00.002-05:00

I smell a new personal reading challenge...

2010-04-05T11:35:00.000-05:00

So one summer I tasked myself to read as many books from "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (the movie) as I could. Through this I discovered how much I like H. Rider Haggard and Oscar Wilde.

My nerd blog just linked me to the top five nominated sci fi/fantasy books for this year. The awards will be presented in September. I bet I could get through all five by then to cast my own ballot (in my head) as to which book should win.

Here they are: (All synopsis from Publishers Weekly)

Boneshaker, by Cherie Priest (I'm not much for girl-power novels, but it's an interesting world - zombies, mad scientists - how could that not be cool?)
Maternal love faces formidable challenges in this stellar steampunk tale. In an alternate 1880s America, mad inventor Leviticus Blue is blamed for destroying Civil War–era Seattle. When Zeke Wilkes, Blue's son, goes into the walled wreck of a city to clear his father's name, Zeke's mother, Briar Wilkes, follows him in an airship, determined to rescue her son from the toxic gas that turns people into zombies (called rotters and described in gut-churning detail). When Briar learns that Seattle still has a mad inventor, Dr. Minnericht, who eerily resembles her dead husband, a simple rescue quickly turns into a thrilling race to save Zeke from the man who may be his father. Intelligent, exceptionally well written and showcasing a phenomenal strong female protagonist who embodies the complexities inherent in motherhood, this yarn is a must-read for the discerning steampunk fan.

The city and the city by China Mieville (I bet this one ends up having a lot of social commentary with the potential for preachiness. Murder mystery though, so could be cool.)

Better known for New Weird fantasies (Perdido Street Station, etc.), bestseller Miéville offers an outstanding take on police procedurals with this barely speculative novel. Twin southern European cities Beszel and Ul Qoma coexist in the same physical location, separated by their citizens' determination to see only one city at a time. Inspector Tyador Borlú of the Extreme Crime Squad roams through the intertwined but separate cultures as he investigates the murder of Mahalia Geary, who believed that a third city, Orciny, hides in the blind spots between Beszel and Ul Qoma. As Mahalia's friends disappear and revolution brews, Tyador is forced to consider the idea that someone in unseen Orciny is manipulating the other cities. Through this exaggerated metaphor of segregation, Miéville skillfully examines the illusions people embrace to preserve their preferred social realities.

Julian Comstock: A Story of 22nd-Century America, by Robert Charles Wilson (I like the idea of it being written like a Victorian novel. Evil uncle, aggressive Dutch, and of course post apocalyptic setting make this all a little more interesting.)
Hugo-winner Wilson (Axis) perpetrates a kind of skewed steampunk novel set in a postcollapse, imperial United States returned to 19th-century technology and mores. Julian Comstock, the disgraced nephew of the tyrannical American president, grows up in a small town in what was formerly northern Canada. Adam Hazzard, Julian's working-class friend, and Sam Godwin, a bluff old retainer and secret Jew, struggle to keep Julian alive despite his uncle's hatred and Julian's proclivity for annoying the repressive Dominion Church. When Julian is drafted to fight the invading Dutch in Labrador, exaggerated tales of his heroism, written by would-be novelist Adam, catapult the young aristocrat to unwanted fame. Written with the eloquence and elegance of a Victorian novel, this thoughtful tale combines complex characters, rousing military adventure and a beautifully realized, unnerving future.

Palimpsest, by Catherynne Valente (This one sounds less appealing, it might be a tougher read).
Four strangers are bound together in adventure, love and occasional sorrow in this parable from Tiptree winner Valente (The Orphan's Tales). The city of Palimpsest exists somewhere outside our reality, accessible only during the sleep that follows sex. The immigrants to Palimpsest, marked forever by the tattoo-like impression of a map on their skin, seek out one another for real-world sexual adventures that function as passports to new otherworldly quarters. In outstandingly beautiful prose, Valente describes grotesque, glamorous creatures sometimes neither human nor animal, alive nor dead, and mortal travelers who pursue poignant personal quests to replace the things (and people) they've lost. Valente's fondness for digression at times makes for a difficult read, and her fable of quest and loneliness is less an engrossing fairy tale and more a meticulous travelogue of a stranger's dream.

WWW: Wake, by Robert Sawyer ( I like the psychological stuff- perception and reality. I'm a sucker for those.)
The wildly thought-provoking first installment of Sawyer's WWW trilogy, serialized in Analog in 2008 and 2009, explores the origins and emergence of consciousness. Blind teen Caitlin Decter gets an experimental signal-processing implant that inexplicably opens up her vision to the wondrous infrastructure of the World Wide Web. Inside the Web is a newborn webmind, a globe-spanning self-contained consciousness that is just becoming aware of the outside world. Secondary plot threads about a highly intelligent hybrid primate and Chinese bloggers battling a repressive government extend the motif of expanding awareness. The thematic diversity—and profundity—makes this one of Sawyer's strongest works to date. Numerous dangling plot threads are an unnecessary pointer to the forthcoming books; readers will keep coming back for the ideas.

The Windup Girl, by Paolo Bacigalupi ("Clearly one of the finest science fiction novels of the year" how can you say no to that?)
Noted short story writer Bacigalupi (Pump Six and Other Stories) proves equally adept at novel length in this grim but beautifully written tale of Bangkok struggling for survival in a post-oil era of rising sea levels and out-of-control mutation. Capt. Jaidee Rojjanasukchai of the Thai Environment Ministry fights desperately to protect his beloved nation from foreign influences. Factory manager Anderson Lake covertly searches for new and useful mutations for a hated Western agribusiness. Aging Chinese immigrant Tan Hock Seng lives by his wits while looking for one last score. Emiko, the titular despised but impossibly seductive product of Japanese genetic engineering, works in a brothel until she accidentally triggers a civil war. This complex, literate and intensely felt tale, which recalls both William Gibson and Ian McDonald at their very best, will garner Bacigalupi significant critical attention and is clearly one of the finest science fiction novels of the year.

I'm boring

2010-03-17T12:58:00.000-05:00

I suck at blogging lately. Maybe it's just that I'm feeling more private, but whatever it is, I don't have much I want to tell the world.

General update: The weather is nice. Duh. I'm getting excited to go out and do things. Charlie and I have a campsite booked for memorial day weekend. We're going to do the camping, exploring thing again. It went so well the first time, I'm super excited. Our trip to Alabama was fantastic. So far it looks like Charlie and I can spend tremendous amounts of time together (take the last trip for instance, where we were together for 10 days straight with no frustration) and still be okay with each other. It's a pretty exciting thing considering I know I tend to go into "people overload" pretty quickly and need to spend time away from any given individual after spending copious amounts of time with them. But not this guy. That's pretty cool.
I didn't get in to the U of Toronto, so I'm exploring other options which I will keep private so I don't have to explain myself if there's another disappointing conclusion. There were too many people banking on me moving to Toronto and it hurt too much to get rejected.
The new office is surprisingly good. I'm getting a good amount of work done and I'm generally ignored. Which I like. I do not like talking on the phone here, yet, but we'll make that one work.
I'm starting to take more photos. I really want a telephoto lens so I can do a better job with sports. I saw one clearance at Wal-Mart. I might splurge. But I need new tires, so we'll see.
Kat got a book club going. We had our first meeting and it was a lot of fun. The book I suggested for this month is not as good as last month's book. It's a little disappointing, but since there's a new book each month, I think I'll get over it.
Most of my time has been spent with Charlie. I realize that sounds lame of me and I should diversify myself and see other friends and all that, but I'm happy and comfortable for now so I'm not going to go out of my way to mix things up. Been working during the week more, too, so I can have weekends free (I used to spread my work week out to seven short days instead of five regular ones. Now I'm doing four really long days and one really short one. It's a nice change of pace.)
And that's all I've got for now. I'll work on thinking and doing more interesting things for next month's blog post. :) And I'll leave you with a picture I'm super proud of - using my gimpy camera and all.

Moving

2010-02-24T09:05:00.000-06:00

The office is moving.

Actually we're being annexed. Our office has always been a satellite office; just me, Denny and George. It's quiet, comfortable, and apparently too extravagant, because they're shutting it down and pouring us into the main office.

The other office is much more like a newsroom - bright, no natural light, cramped, loud and everyone is in everyone else's business. There are no cubicles, just one room with a bunch of desks.

I'm less than excited about the move, but I can't change anything about it. Just another reason to dislike my job - like everyone else in the world, I guess.

So that's what I get back to from vacation: "Hey, it's getting colder again here, and your office is closing, and you've been rejected from the University of Toronto, and we're still not going to pay you the money we owe you for your HSA even though you need new glasses, and we're not going to pay you for the stories you finished for a couple more weeks, and hey - here are all these problems with your family's finances and your grandma. WELCOME HOME!"

So I've been grouchy. Now that I'm at the new office I have the option to go to night meetings and count those toward my work week. So the more night meetings I go to, the less time I have to spend in the office. And while it's kind of a trade off - spending my Monday, Tuesday (and infrequently Thursday and Saturday) evenings at city meetings isn't the best, it's preferable to the office.

And the lesson I learned was don't go on vacation because your life sucks when you get back.

More work frustration

2010-02-10T15:20:00.000-06:00

It happened AGAIN. The headline of my article was changed (I double checked) so that it was inaccurate and the editor didn't proofread it.

I'm frustrated to the point of tears because I can't do anything about it. It's someone else's mistake pinned to my name and it negates my hard work.

And they still owe me money they took out of my paycheck and never gave me.

Anyone hiring out there? It might be time to find a new job.

Ego Boost

2010-02-02T11:49:00.001-06:00

Urban Dictionary. I'm pretty sure that those definitions will appear in Oxford and Merriam-Webster any day now.

That January Funk

2010-01-28T08:54:00.000-06:00

I don't have much to say, so I'm not going to say much.

I've hit that January funk like most of the world and my brand of dealing with it is sitting in my room, watching House and knitting. I'm going to need to find a new TV show soon, I'm almost done with the three seasons I have of this one.

It's the price I pay for not taking meds - sometimes my coping mechanisms make me extremely antisocial. Way better than being tweaked out on a medication I don't really need, however.

So, until I come back from my vacation (hopefully) recharged, it'll be pretty much radio silence.

Oh, and I submit my application for the U of Toronto today. Fingers crossed.

Measuring Up

2010-01-20T09:30:00.003-06:00

The two lists below are the modern library's Top 100 Books. I just like to see how much on there I've read. I've got a long way to go, turns out.

Board's Choice
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce
2. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
5. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
6. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
7. CATCH-22
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
10. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
11. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
13. 1984 by George Orwell
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
17. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
18. SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
19. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
20. NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
21. HENDERSON THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow
22. APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
23. U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
24. WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
25. A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
26. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
27. THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
28. TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
29. THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
30. THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
31. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
32. THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
33. SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
34. A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
35. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
36. ALL THE KING'S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
37. THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY by Thornton Wilder
38. HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
39. GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
40. THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene
41. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
42. DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
43. A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
44. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
45. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
46. THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
47. NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
48. THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
49. WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
50. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
51. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
52. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth
53. PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
54. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
55. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
56. THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett
57. PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford
58. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
59. ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
60. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
61. DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather
62. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
63. THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
64. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
65. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
66. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
67. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
68. MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
69. THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
70. THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
71. A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
72. A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
73. THE DAY OF THE LOCUST by Nathanael West
74. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
75. SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
76. THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
77. FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
78. KIM by Rudyard Kipling
79. A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
80. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
81. THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH by Saul Bellow
82. ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
83. A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
84. THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
85. LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
86. RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow
87. THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
88. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
89. LOVING by Henry Green
90. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
91. TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
92. IRONWEED by William Kennedy
93. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
94. WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
95. UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
96. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
97. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
98. THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
99. THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
100. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington

Readers' Choice
1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
4. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
5. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
6. 1984 by George Orwell
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
9. MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
10. FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard
11. ULYSSES by James Joyce
12. CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
13. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
14. DUNE by Frank Herbert
15. THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS by Robert Heinlein
16. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein
17. A TOWN LIKE ALICE by Nevil Shute
18. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
19. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
20. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
21. GRAVITY'S RAINBOW by Thomas Pynchon
22. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
23. SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
24. GONE WITH THE WIND by Margaret Mitchell
25. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
26. SHANE by Jack Schaefer
27. TRUSTEE FROM THE TOOLROOM by Nevil Shute
28. A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY by John Irving
29. THE STAND by Stephen King
30. THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN by John Fowles
31. BELOVED by Toni Morrison
32. THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddison
33. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
34. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
35. MOONHEART by Charles de Lint
36. ABSALOM, ABSALOM! by William Faulkner
37. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
38. WISE BLOOD by Flannery O'Connor
39. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
40. FIFTH BUSINESS by Robertson Davies
41. SOMEPLACE TO BE FLYING by Charles de Lint
42. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
43. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
44. YARROW by Charles de Lint
45. AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS by H.P. Lovecraft
46. ONE LONELY NIGHT by Mickey Spillane
47. MEMORY AND DREAM by Charles de Lint
48. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
49. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
50. TRADER by Charles de Lint
51. THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams
52. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
53. THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood
54. BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
55. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
56. ON THE BEACH by Nevil Shute
57. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
58. GREENMANTLE by Charles de Lint
59. ENDER'S GAME by Orson Scott Card
60. THE LITTLE COUNTRY by Charles de Lint
61. THE RECOGNITIONS by William Gaddis
62. STARSHIP TROOPERS by Robert Heinlein
63. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
64. THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving
65. SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury
66. THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE by Shirley Jackson
67. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
68. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
69. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
70. THE WOOD WIFE by Terri Windling
71. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
72. THE DOOR INTO SUMMER by Robert Heinlein
73. ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by Robert Pirsig
74. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
75. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
76. AT SWIM-TWO-BIRDS by Flann O'Brien
77. FARENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
78. ARROWSMITH by Sinclair Lewis
79. WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams
80. NAKED LUNCH by William S. Burroughs
81. THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER by Tom Clancy
82. GUILTY PLEASURES by Laurell K. Hamilton
83. THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein
84. IT by Stephen King
85. V. by Thomas Pynchon
86. DOUBLE STAR by Robert Heinlein
87. CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY by Robert Heinlein
88. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
89. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
90. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST by Ken Kesey
91. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
92. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
93. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey
94. MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather
95. MULENGRO by Charles de Lint
96. SUTTREE by Cormac McCarthy
97. MYTHAGO WOOD by Robert Holdstock
98. ILLUSIONS by Richard Bach
99. THE CUNNING MAN by Robertson Davies
100. THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie

So, the Readers and I seem to have more in common, but still. I've got a lotta reading to do! And thank God Harry Potter is no where near this list. Entertaining story? Sure. Fine sample of writing? Heck no!

Fact: My job sucks

2010-01-08T10:49:00.002-06:00

Thanks Huff Post - I kinda figured it was true, but you proved it for me.

Here's the Article:

Newspaper Reporter Ranks Poorly In Career Ranking

First Posted: 01- 6-10 02:32 PM | Updated: 01- 6-10 02:54 PM

WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?

Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird

Read More: Career, Newspapers, Media News

Retweet this story!

Everyone knows the media world has been suffering, but how bad is it? A new ranking of 200 jobs in the US in 2009 puts "Reporter (Newspaper)" as #184.

The study from careercast.com ranked on five criterion: environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands and stress.

Newspaper reporter came in between Seamen (#183) and Stevedore (#185). For those unaware, a stevedor (according to a google) is someone who loads and unloads ships.

Beating out reporter were Janitor (#83), Teacher (#116), Maid (#131), Bus Driver (#137), and Chauffeur (#160)

But, being a newspaper reporter is better than being a Photojournalist (#189), a Dairy Farmer (#197), an Ironworker (#198) and at #200, a Roustabout. A roustabout, the internet says, is an unskilled, temporary laborer employed in something like an oil field.

So, yeah - my job is worse than a janitor or bus driver. Good time for a career change, I think.

Hello, My Name is Kate and I'm a Geek

2010-01-07T21:58:00.004-06:00

I love this blog. Seriously, love.

Don't think I can thank you enough, Bridget. This will give me hours of enjoyment.

I especially love all of the YouTube clips, because I'm too lazy to navigate YouTube myself for things that might be interesting.

If you get a chance, click on the Symphony of Science video. It's hella cool. (Assumption: Nerdy is cool)

Angry

2010-01-06T09:37:00.002-06:00

I'm guessing someone hit automatic spellcheck on the final copy and no one proofread it. Steve Larson becomes Steve Arson. New Brighton becomes New Brighten. Last names are deleted.

They screwed up my copy. I work hard on that and not having anyone proofread the final draft is adding insult to the injury it does to my reputation as a writer.

Because my name is attached to it, everyone thinks I'm negligent. Once I hand my copy into the editor to be proofed and sent off, it's out of my hands. It's up to the editor to proof it - twice. I'm not sure if composing checks it at all.

This is huge, however. They majorly destroyed this article and I'm going to have to work extra hard to rebuild a reputation that was damaged through no fault of my own.

And you know what - this isn't the first time I've had problems because someone failed to proofread the final copy.

This is just another mistake I'm dealing with from this company (they screwed up my HSA) right now so I'm already frustrated, but still, it's hard to put a lot of work into something only to have someone else screw it up by being careless.

Grrr.

I seem to need help reflecting lately

2009-12-30T12:38:00.003-06:00

1. What did you do in 2009 that you'd never done before? I adventured in Disney World with my other half, spent my birthday in the hospital, watched fireworks from a rooftop on the fourth of July, went camping, and got my very own video game system.

2. Did you keep your new years' resolutions, and will you make more for next year? I try not to play that game. No one seems to win.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth? YES. There are two new babies in my extended family: my cousin Bryan's son, Liam, and my cousin Kristy's daughter, Kaira. I'm excited for new babies.

4. Did anyone close to you die? My grandpa died in January.

5. What countries did you visit? None. We were going to go to Canada in September, but you need a passport now and that is stupid.

6. What would you like to have in 2010 that you lacked in 2009? I want to go back to school and start doing something I really enjoy. Financial stability is nice, but I'm not naive enough to think I'll have that before I turn 30.

7. What dates from 2009 will remain etched upon your memory, and why? Our entire trip to Disney World for the near literal whirlwind adventure it was - every park 1 1/2 times in two days! My birthday - hoping it never gets that bad again. June 3, the day Charlie and I figured out we thought the other one was pretty neat. My first ever camping adventure at the end of September.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year? Realizing my limits and not taking a job I had initially been excited for. I'm really bad at understanding I can't do everything.

9. What was your biggest failure? Not realizing soon enough.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury? Yup, I'm a gimp. Mono took me out for two weeks, I wasn't back to full speed until over a month after being diagnosed. I did manage to keep going for a week before I was diagnosed, though: "It's okay, it's just a cold. I'm gonna push through it and go for a run anyway. Oh, hello hospital."

11. What was the best thing you bought? My first adult bike. Vintage Schwinn Collegiate. It's all pretty and stuff.

12. Whose behavior merited celebration? My aunt Patty. She pulled together a 300+ guest princess wedding in less than 6 months. And it rocked. I am still amazed at her organization skills.

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed? I don't want to make this public but there was definitely some serious disillusionment with people I am close to this year.

14. Where did most of your money go? Loans.

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about? Camping, Christmas, babies, weddings.

16. What song will always remind you of 2009? I don't work that way. I enjoy music - a lot - but it just doesn't stick in my head like books do. Book for 2009: Atlas Shrugged. I will finish that sucker.

17. Compared to this time last year, you are: Oh man, I was unstable this time last year. I'm much more assertive with what I want, I think.

18. What do you wish you'd done more of? Read, always read.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of? Wait.

20. How did you spend Christmas? Christmas eve with my extended family, Christmas morning with my immediate family and the rest of Christmas with Charlie's family.

22. Did you fall in love in 2009? I'd say there are very good odds of that.

23. How many one-night stands? Why would anyone want to make that information public?

24. What was your favorite TV program? Hmm, I always enjoy 30 Rock, but there was this new "Battlestar Galactica" thing I was introduced to that I really like.

25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year? Hate? No.

26. What was the best book you read? Alliance Francais was good, I really liked Reading Lolita in Tehran, Atlas Shrugged has some really interesting ideas, and The Hound of Baskerville was very entertaining.

27. What was your greatest musical discovery? Elly and Charlie

28. What did you want and get? For whatever reason, I'm having a hard time reflecting on this one. I like a lot of the things I have in my life - both tangible and not. I think I'm better at being happy with what comes along or just making things happen out of necessity. There's not really a "wish come true" attitude there. Even with Disney - I wanted it so I made it happen. "Got" seems to imply some sort of luck.

29. What did you want and not get? Refer to the above answer where I argue the question instead of answering it, like I'm so very good at.

30. What was your favorite film of this year? I didn't see a lot of movies in the theater - I don't really have the money for that. However, I did see Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark at a retro screening and that may have been the best movie experience I've ever had. I really love Indiana Jones. A lot.

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you? I turned 23 and I remember thinking - 23 years ago I was born in this hospital and on the anniversary of that day I will die here. I was a bit morbid, but I received about 3 liters of fluids and a good amount of steroids and painkiller intravenously so I think my worry was justified. I also did not get my birthday wish - which was to eat solid food that day. Doesn't it make your birthday sound great?

32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying? Not getting sick, not moving to Minneapolis, not having my breaks fail while driving - man I do a lot of stupid stuff. We'll stop this list now.

33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2009? Comfortable

34. What kept you sane? Books, Charlie, Harvest Moon, meditation

35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most? Chris Pine is a cutie, a young Harrison Ford is always on this list

36. What political issue stirred you the most? Health care, Afghanistan, I was pretty embroilled in local city elections - woo-ee.

37. Who did you miss? I missed Michael for awhile, but not any more. My grandpa and the New York Garlocks, Carrie Taylor - always

38. Who was the best new person you met? Alex Aldrich, I find it's rare to meet relaxed, down to earth people and I value them when I find them.

39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2009? I've gotta stand up for what I want and not rely on other people to do it for me.

40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year. Um, I'm not good at this game, either.

And so this is Christmas

2009-12-29T20:43:00.003-06:00

This year felt weird, but I think they all feel that way. I get a little more disillusioned with my family Christmas every year, but I had the shiny, happy new of Charlie's Christmas to make up for it.

He and I celebrated Christmas week with enjoying the snow, shopping and cursing the snow, lots of staying in when we planned to go out, a failed baking attempt on my part, some frantic wrapping on his part and a present exchange win.

I was all super excited because I had saved up enough to buy him an XBox360 for Christmas - it has all the games he wants and his XBox broke recently. I found a couple other things I was really excited about to go with it - a subscription to Harpers, a couple nicely bound Mark Twain books, a Hardy Boys book (he learned how to play the piano - thus entering the world of music - after he used to put the Hardy Boys books up on the piano and compose music to their covers as a child. He was then given piano lessons. I think it's both adorable and funny) and a "learn French" CD (I want him to move to Canada with me - a topic which shall be discussed in another paragraph).

I was super excited that all my little silly presents would lead up to the big one. I was worried he would say I was spoiling him, I tend to overdo it a little when I'm excited.

Well, guess who has the same tendency?

On Christmas Eve I opened: The original Star Wars trilogy - something I've mentioned wanting forever. A Wii. Yes. A Wii. Not only a m-fing Wii, but Harvest Moon. And not only Harvest Moon, but the best Harvest Moon I have ever played. Yeah. Spoiled.

Harvest Moon has been the only video game I've consistently enjoyed and devoted large chunks of time to (I'm a farming RPG nerd, what can I say?). I never thought any version could beat my beloved N64 - well I think I have a new beloved and that is the Wii.

So I have been consumed with virtual farming, saving Harmonica Town from a blight, making friends in town and trying to earn a profit to keep my farm going. It's a stressful life, I tells ya.

Canada

I feel like I need sub-heads, I've been doing this journalism thing too much.

Anyway, I have been talking about leaving America since high school. Honestly, it's never been for me. I've always talked about leaving for France, but never had the balls to set up residence on an entirely different continent with no family or job prospects. Canada, however, is less than two hours away from family. Toronto is anyway - I have family near Niagara falls.

Now Charlie has similar feelings of discontent with American culture and government, and was talking about moving to Denmark. I convinced him to take a closer look at Toronto. I did the same thing and fell in love with the University of Toronto.

Now I decided a long time ago that I wanted to go back to school and I wanted to study medicine (what I do after I study medicine - who knows. There are lots of options there, though, many of which I really like the thought of. I could even become Sherlock Holmes; it's the study I'm focusing on for the time being, not the specific job choice). Well, turns out U of Toronto is an excellent medical school.

So I'm going. I'm going to get out of the midwest, for awhile at least, while I'm young and pursue my studies in Canada. I still have to apply and what not (the fee is somewhere close to $300 and I need to get my transcripts sent and all that), but I'm gonna make it happen.

Journalism is not for me. I'll have been at my job two years this summer, tried it, put my hours in, and now I know I just don't want to do it forever. Setting aside the fact that I'll never make more than I'm making now and that's just plain not enough to live on - I can't see myself enjoying this job for much longer. So it's time to cut my losses and run - to the great white North.

I might not have explained this well in blog form, but I've thought it through - from every angle. And yeah, it's risky. And yeah, it's a lot of school. And yeah, a lot of money, too. But I'm not gonna be happy doing anything else, so I'm going for it.

And the plan was for Charlie to go too. He seems a little less gung-ho about it now, but here's hoping it all works out.

And that's why I gave Charlie a learn French CD.

Christmas Part Deux

So yes, it was a happy Christmas. Low-key, my favorite kind. Charlie's family pointed out how nerdy I am. At least they realize it - maybe someday my own family will.

Nerdiness in their family is compliment - they're all nerds. And Nerd Kate is a way better moniker than Hobo Charlie, so I'll take it.

Speaking of - I've not got $35 worth of book gift cards. My friends like to feed my addiction. I'm going to try to get more non-fiction in this batch, so if anyone can recommend a good biography or autobiography, let me know. I'm thinking Nelson Mandela. We'll see what I find. I'm also gonna look for a Stephen Hawking book. I'm super excited.

Nerd Kate signing out.

POLITICO

2009-11-25T10:39:00.000-06:00

Here's an interesting article from Politico. I like their work.

Not saying it's true, it's just how I feel

2009-11-23T23:23:00.002-06:00

I read this awhile back and every now and then I revisit it. It seems to give words to something I've felt for a long time. Not that it's true, completely but there are pieces.

Ascendant in Capricorn

There's a seriousness to Capricorn rising people that is unmistakable. Even when they're joking around, it's of the deadpan variety. In fact, plenty of very humorous people have Capricorn Ascendants. It's all in the timing...and the fact that they don't giggle before the joke is over. Capricorn Ascendant people project competence. They simply ooze it. They're generally very image-conscious people--the clothes they wear and their manner are a big deal to them. They want to appear successful, and they generally succeed! Often the Ascendant persona is the one that was forced upon us by family conditioning. For example, parents may label their Libra Ascendant child the "nice" one; their Aries Ascendant child the "independent" one; and their Pisces Ascendant child is generally the space cadet of the family. We adopt these roles as familiar ones, and often carry them with us as our defense mechanisms, in some way or another, for the rest of our lives. In the case of Capricorn Ascendants, these were the children who were considered the responsible ones. Sometimes, it was they themselves who looked around them and felt the need to be the structured, dependable, and responsible members of the family. So, often, Capricorn rising people adopted a strong sense of tradition, family, and responsibility at a very young age.

Capricorn rising people are generally big on family, and forever worry about security--for themselves and their dependents. They come across to others as hard-working, competent, and dependable people. What others may not see under that cool, even suave, exterior, is an inner struggle: they often ask themselves, "Am I doing enough?", "Do I deserve all of this?", "How can I make things better?" They worry a lot about the future. If success seemed to have come easy to these folks, it hasn't. They just made it look that way with a patient, hard-working, driven personality. Some Capricorn rising people practice some form of self-denial. They know how to do away with the frivolous. Still, they'll spend money on the clothes they really want (the ones with the right labels, that is), and other status symbols. Although they're rarely showy, their quiet air of success is often a result of conscious effort. More often than not, Capricorn rising individuals are success stories. Their childhoods may have been difficult, but they slowly but surely turn their lives around. Saturn rules this Ascendant, and this generally means a kind of backwards way of living--as children, they are serious and bear a lot of responsibility; and as they grow up, they age beautifully, learning how to loosen up.

---

The projecting confidence thing, especially. I feel like I'm rarely challenged because people often just assume I know what I'm doing. So when I am challenged, I assume I'm wrong. That's something I need to address in myself. The sense of humor thing, however, untrue. I often ruin my own jokes by laughing at them - when I'm telling a joke. I guess people have a hard time telling when I'm making a joke sometimes, but I blame that on my obscure sense of humor, not the delivery. And the last bit of the first paragraph - responsibility, strong sense of family and children. Yup.

And the need for security, not just for you but for the people in your life. Uh huh. And the self-doubt. Check. Don't get me wrong, I count it as a fluke that this is as accurate as it is, but that doesn't mean I'll deny that I find it to be mostly accurate. Status symbols - not so much. I realized a couple weeks ago I don't own a pair of black business pumps. How do I get along as an adult without business shoes? So I wear flats and look like a little girl. Meh, I'll work on it but I'm in no hurry. But then maybe that fits into the doing away with the frivolous.

My mom made some comment about how I'd fit in well in the thirties when I made a comment on the frivolity and general pointlessness of diamond jewelry. It's true. I don't care much for fancy stuff. I think that makes it extra special when I do occasionally indulge in wearing a dress or nice jewelry. It makes going out more special.

This is just thought vomit. My point was I should work on coming to terms with myself. But then again, that's kind of the point of all of my blogs.

Census

2009-11-20T09:42:00.002-06:00

I'm writing a story about the census right now, and wanted to look exactly what Bachman has stated publicly about the census. I found this sassy portion of a blog entry from the Huffington Post and had to share it. And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that lousy census!

Anyway, yesterday, Michele Bachmann went on the Glenn Beck Common Sense Comedy Hour to talk about all of this. Understandably, Bachmann is concerned with whether the government should know about its citizens' "mental stability." And here is one of Bachmann's amazing insights:

BACHMANN: You know the question that's not on this survey, Glenn? "Are you a U.S. citizen?" This would be your perfect opportunity to find out how many illegal aliens are in the United States.

Of course! That is precisely the way this mystery should be penetrated! I can see it now!

CENSUS TAKER: Okay, next question...are you a U.S. Citizen?

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: RATS! You caught me!
CENSUS TAKER: I shall now deport you, with my ACORN magicks!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: And to think I almost got away with it!

And that's the incredibly true story of how Mitt Romney had to start paying his gardeners actual money!

Conscientous

2009-11-13T14:01:00.004-06:00

Most people are not conscientious people. You can't tell them this, however, because most people associate conscientiousness with being kind. Being kind is not the same. Conscientious people are aware - to a fault. Even in the definition: meticulous, careful, painstaking, deliberate.

To be conscientious you have to be aware of consequences, understand the difference between need and desires.

Being conscientious is hard and painful. It is a compliment in the sense that not many people carry that burden.

I've noticed that difference in myself lately. I feel as though I am a conscientious person. But what I would give not to be. Not to be aware of other people's needs, and only my own.

People by nature are selfish - it's a survival tactic. My survival tactic is inhibited and it's hard. It makes surviving hard and often I suck at it. I put other's needs and desires before my own; to the point where I'm never really sure what I want. It's negatively impacted my life, and you know what? It probably always will. Because it's mega hard to change your personality. Most coming of age teen movies warn you against it.

And I come off as smothering, and I have my needs neglected, and I have an unbalanced perception of what is included in 'selfishness.' Selfishness is healthy, just because I'm deficient in it doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong.

In this country, the public seems so concerned about having its needs looked after. Who's going to watch out for my needs? There's a little disillusionment that comes with thinking, "Well you've got to look out for your own needs. No one else is going to do it for you."

But really, it's true; one must not depend on others to take care of them, but instead step up and being more self reliant.

And I can hear it now - the interdependence of society and all that. Yes, we rely on each other because we need to for survival. I understand. My point is more that we have to be our own advocates, we can't expect someone to advocate for us. No one is going to take the time to figure out what I need and help me get it. I have to be aware of my needs all by myself and make sure they're filled.

And you know what, I'm not going to stop doing this for others. My Gatsby-esque realization won't change my personality. I wish it would, but then it wouldn't be Gatsby-esque, would it?

What I would give to be Dagny Taggert.

Where have all the strong words gone?

2009-11-05T17:26:00.002-06:00

awe⋅some [aw-suhm]
–adjective
1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.
2. showing or characterized by awe.
3. Slang. very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.

trag⋅ic [traj-ik]
–adjective
1. characteristic or suggestive of tragedy: tragic solemnity.
2. extremely mournful, melancholy, or pathetic: a tragic plight.
3. dreadful, calamitous, disastrous, or fatal: a tragic event.
4. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of tragedy: the tragic drama.
5. acting in or writing tragedy: a tragic actor; a tragic poet.
6. the tragic, the element or quality of tragedy in literature, art, drama, etc.: lives that had never known anything but the tragic.

I think the definitions listed are too broad. Someday we will encounter truly awesome or tragic things and we will not have the words to describe them. I'm with Henry Higgens; let's show a little more reverence for the English language, shall we?

Life updates are all I got right now

2009-11-04T13:46:00.002-06:00

I'm sick. And a little stressed. Elections were this week and my editor wants me to talk to both winners and losers - so 23 people total - in the next two days. I'm limiting the interviews to two questions to fit it all in, but still it's hard to get a hold of that many people.

And also I'm not really here. I'm focused on Saturday. When I can, in theory, begin my new car shopping. I found a 2003 Honda Civic, automatic, with CD player, power options, anti-theft device, and - get this - a little less than 40k miles on it. I'm in heaven. I hope nobody buys it between now and then. I get paid tomorrow. I can get my finances in order Friday and Saturday go take a look at it. Until then, let's hope nobody decides to new car shop in Burnsville. That could happen, right?

My car has been slowly going since, well, July and finally died early this month. I've been ride sharing with my mom to get to work all month and I'm hella stoked to have my own vehicle again.

Staying in has been easy this week, too cuz I been real sick, but not sick enough to skip work. Because I'm one of those happy few people who does not have paid sick leave. I don't get articles in, I don't get paid. Yippee. And we have forced vacation in December when the office closes for five days so I've gotta save my vacation and all that. Oh yeah, living the dream.

I'm complain-y because I need a nap. And a little bitter because George just left for the day. At 1:30. He came in at 11. We went to lunch at 11:30. He said he had interviews, but I haven't seen him write an article in weeks, so I don't know where all the stories are that he's interviewing for. Grr, bitter.

Okay, I'm getting unattractive, so I'm going to quit venting and go back to work. Blah.

Wedding

2009-11-03T19:48:00.002-06:00

So I'm looking at pictures of my cousins wedding and thinking, "Man I wish I could have been there."

The catch? I was the personal attendant.

I just get myself stressed out over things that are beyond my control. Specifically the things beyond my control. Having some iota of control (real or imagined) is how I cope. I had no (even imagined) iota of control for this wedding and so I checked out. Then when I was all done and it came time for the reception I was wiped.

It's a sad realization. I didn't take the time to stop and enjoy the fact that it was my cousin's wedding.

Hopefully lesson learned - take time to chill out and enjoy moments like that.

Moments I did enjoy: helping her get into her dress and standing with her, fixing her train, as she was about to walk down the aisle. Things only I got to do.

Those are some pretty awesome memories to have.

Looking back, I should have sucked up the "I'm tired" thing and danced at least once at her wedding. I'm just not a chicken dance or electric slide kind of girl.

Perspective

2009-10-25T20:17:00.003-05:00

When Michelangelo was my age this is what he did:

Kind of makes you think.

From City Pages

2009-10-21T11:28:00.001-05:00

Ex-employee robs Culver's in mask, is recognized by worker

By Emily Kaiser in Crime, Really bad ideas

Wed., Oct. 21 2009 @ 9:21AM

Photo by icathing

A former Culver's employee in Marshall, Minn. thought it would be easy to rob a place he used to work for. Unfortunately the mask he wore during the robbery wasn't enough to stop the person working that morning from recognizing him. Better luck next time. Might not hurt to try a place where no one knows you.

An employee recognized Matthew Landis, 28, about 15 seconds into the robbery. He is accused of coming into the Culver's before opening on Saturday, wielding a baseball bat. He was busted because of his voice and familiar build.

Terry Fedde, 25, is also in jail for allegedly running the getaway car. When a peace officer tried to stop Landis, he ran into a cornfield.

Accountability

2009-10-20T20:41:00.002-05:00

Charlie mentioned something about how putting something in writing makes him more likely to do whatever he said he wants to do. I think I operate in a similar fashion.

Back when I was a freshman/sophomore in college I was pre-med. I talked myself out if it with the help of my mom. She said I couldn't handle the gore, I wasn't a fan of my biology classes and didn't want to be in school until I was 30.

Now I miss school. And I miss science. I've thought very seriously about enrolling in a calculus class for fun - I like the tangible solutions.

And George thought it was strange that I prefer to write the science articles about water conservation and the like rather than cover a play or an author.

My mom always said I was better with books than science.

I was sitting talking with my dad several months back and he told me that I may have crafted for myself an "arts mind" but I have a "math and science heart."

And I think he was right on.

So is it some new kind of feminism where I have to step up, claim my love of science and let the world know that there's nothing wrong with me for not being artsy? I'm not. I'm not artsy, I'm not creative, I'm scientific.

It's not bad, it's not deficient, it's just different.

And maybe it's the artsy crowds I put myself in, but I've always felt deficient for not being creative, but being more analytical. It's hard to recondition my own thinking to "I can succeed in science," or "I'm strong enough to push through the hard parts of medical school."

That's really what it is, I'm a clever person, I could learn the material. It's just the strength I was always missing, and when I turned to my support system I couldn't really find it there.

So now, this next year, I'm going to try to find that strength in myself to be my own support system and find a way to make it to medical school.

Because I think I could be a way kick ass doctor, and even though I can do this writing thing - my heart's not in it.

Strange having people tell me I'm living the dream being paid to write - it's just another office job for me, though.

So here we go, resolution. Here's hoping this one sticks.

Prayer of St. Francis

2009-10-15T18:44:00.001-05:00

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;

where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury, pardon;

where there is doubt, faith;

where there is despair, hope;

where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,

grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;

to be understood, as to understand;

to be loved, as to love;

for it is in giving that we receive,

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,

and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

Bleh

2009-10-15T12:05:00.002-05:00

It makes me sad that our jobless rate is so high, but the government spends money on a war most people don't much care for. Then they spend more money trying to convince us we actually want this war and don't want more jobs. If only we stopped giving money to wars and banks I think this would be a happier place. We could afford health care and wouldn't have to bicker about it for months.

Don't hate the player

2009-10-13T13:18:00.003-05:00

You've heard that phrase, yes? "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Well I think it's okay to hate the player if they play the game incorrectly. "Don't hate the player as long as they're following the rules, and don't blame the game for your inability to succeed at it."

You wouldn't say Checkers is a scam because you always lose.

Same thing with institutions. I think a lot of institutions get bad reps for bad players.

So go ahead and hate the player if they're screwing up the game.

Yay metaphors!

New Post, Old Thought

2009-10-04T21:48:00.002-05:00

I have a post-it note application on my computer. I love it. I have the following categories: music, recommended books (to buy), quotes I like, characters to column inches (a translation for work), raw thoughts, and adventures.

Here is a sample from each since I don't feel up to a real blog entry right now.

Music:

Vampire Weekend
Happy Apple
Halloween, Alaska
POS
Rufus Wainright: "Puttin' on the Ritz"
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
The High Llamas

Recommended Books (to buy):

The Gun Seller, Hugh Laurie
Daisy Miller, Henry James
Washington Square, Henry James
Lolita, Nabokov
Invitation to a Beheading, Nabokov
Under Western Eyes, Conrad
Every Man Dies Alone, Hans Fallada
The Lost City of Z
Lamb, Christopher Moore
Middlesex
A Complete History of Nearly Everything
Letters to a Young Contrarian, Hitchens
Ishmeal, Quinn

Quotes I like:

Jabba naga nu asha uba yatuka do yuna slagwa.

"Art is a lie which helps us realize the truth."
-Picasso

"The end of this is "Can you get meaning from print?"
-MRC training

"I've been thinking about this, and I think you and I are going to be friends for a long time."
-Kyle Tennis 6/3/09

"Space is not what we think it is. Space is normally that which creates separation and independence. Quantum physics can bridge space in a way where objects that are far apart act as though they are next to each other." Dr. Green, Professor of mathematics and physics at Columbia University

"Quixotic boys who look for joys / quixotic hazards run / A lass annoying with trivial toys / opposing man for fun." - Anonymous (No "e"s)

"Hou! Lippe, eau? / Ou Lipp? Haut? / Houx lit: "peau" / Houle hippo! / Ou lit? Pot?" - Oulipo poem

"She's a phony, but she's a real phony because she honestly believes all that phony crap she believes." - Breakfast at Tiffany's

Characters to column inches:

500 - 3.5
1000 - 7
1500 - 10
2000 - 13
2500 - 16

etc.

Adventures:

Book Across the Bay
Apostle Islands Camping
Ely wolves
ski gunflint
Lutsen ski
Wild Game
Apple Picking

Raw thoughts (I try really hard to not be pretentious, but am always afraid this stuff will come off that way. I just think a lot. Nerd points just went up.):

**I seem to exist in this strange paradox of hopeful skepticism; wary of anything definite, yet grasping toward the tangible; not trusting in much, hopes that there is better to come. How do I know what I hold in my hands is what I think it is, is what you say you think it is. How do I know what you or I or they are thinking when everyone has a filter? What does pure thought sound like? Like prayer? Like music? Where is my medium for pure thought? Is that why I'm a skeptic? A hopeful skeptic who will continue searching for her medium of purity.

Life update post

2009-09-20T22:32:00.003-05:00

Birthday weekend ended successfully today. Birthday boy (should be) passed out in bed now. What raucous events did the weekend include, you may ask. Well let me indulge you.

On Friday evening, I brought a cake over. It's a delicious cake and I didn't want to tempt my family by having it sit in their fridge. I then left, went to a family shindig at G-ma's (I know how to party, yo), and returned later around nine.

At this time, we went and bought a case of beer. Then we went back to Charlie's and he worked on some music while I read. Then we went to sleep. To clarify, Charlie has been working on a specific piece of music for months now and his birthday was his deadline for completing it.

So the next morning - woke up, he did more music work while I read on the computer a little. Then I took him to run errands (he'll get tabs and insurance on his car Wednesday). After we finished our errands, he finished his music in time for us to head to his parent's around four. We stayed there, ate dinner, had cake, blah blah blah until 9 or so. I actually have a fun time hanging out with his family. Of course I'm stressed out. I'm an introvert. New, public things stress me out. But it's still fun.

Anyway.

Came home, went to Happy Gnome for a couple Rogue Charlies, then went home and went to bed.

Got up this morning - well, afternoon, somewhere between 12 and 1. Went to Lyle's to catch the tail end of the game (looked like we were going to lose to the worst team in the league for awhile, but pulled through. I'm not as excited as it sounds. That's pretty unexcited). Then decided we wanted to keep drinking (had only gotten a six pack on Friday) so decided to go to Wisconsin.

Decided, well, while we're in Wisconsin, might as well go to River Falls. Visited the farm. Were nuzzled by yearlings, petted the full grown horses. Then a puppy - maybe 10 wk old black lab - decided to be ferocious and attack Charlie's pant leg. It was the most adorable thing ever. I mean fierce. He was a very fierce dog and I was very afraid.

Then we drove into town. Had a beer at Emma's. Picked up a case of beer for less than 50 cents a can (why did I leave Wisconsin?) and headed back home. Then we traded in our James Bond movie for the Wolverine movie (I wish we would have just watched James Bond again, but not bad). Then we called it a night.

Somewhere in there was cake, present opening and all that, but over all we had just a really nice weekend. Very calm.

Wednesday afternoon we leave for the boundary waters. We'll get there Wednesday night and leave Sunday morning. That's the real birthday celebration. Hanging out in nature for a solid three days and change. It's my first time real camping and I'm hella excited.

So yeah, that's life. Expect more news update posts to follow. Although I have to fit a full week of writing and interviews into two and a half days this week. So maybe I'll be a little busy. Who knows.

I'm reminded of Mulan

2009-09-18T09:32:00.003-05:00

Specifically the song about the matchmaker.

"We all must serve our emperor/ who guards us from the Huns;/ A man by bearing arms,/a girl by bearing sons."

EDIT

Wall Street Journal has interesting articles today. Maybe looking at them once a week is a good thing.

I was in tears

2009-09-16T21:48:00.002-05:00

If you have 20 or 30 minutes to kill, see how far you can get through these pictures.

I was crying I was laughing so hard. I don't want to set too high a bar - but here's my favorite:

2009-09-16T12:48:00.002-05:00

Likes:

*Government tax credits

*Mandates for insurance companies regarding practices and benefits

"All plans must provide preventive and primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, physician services, outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings (including x-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that at least meet minimum standards set by federal and state laws. In addition, plans could charge no deductibles or copayments for preventive care services, although the bill allows for some exceptions."

*Creating a more competitive market

Dislikes:

*Mandating that every buy from a private company - someone pointed out that they mandate auto insurance. Well driving a care is a choice, living is not.

*Fining people who don't have insurance

*Reducing Medicare benefits

*Paid for by fees and taxes (not with the kind of deficit we have anyway). Deficit neutral, yes, but it's just going to cost tax payers more in a hurting economy. We have no proof the economy will be sorted out by 2013. Mostly because Bernanke is a liar.

*All or nothing coverage

So now we have to pay really close attention to the amendments, I guess. Oh this whole process is crazy.

Poll: What kind of coverage will this get compared to the deaths of Patrick Swayze and/or Michael Jackson?

2009-09-16T12:07:00.004-05:00

From POLITICO

Baucus releases health care bill

By: Carrie Budoff Brown
September 16, 2009 09:46 AM EST

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) proposed an $856 billion plan Wednesday to overhaul the health care system, releasing a bill after months of bipartisan negotiations without any immediate Republican support.

The bill forces insurance companies to change the way they do business, such as prohibiting them from dropping or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. To force competition with private insurers, Baucus chose creating nonprofit consumer-owned cooperatives over the public insurance option, which most Democrats prefer.

“This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long,” Baucus said in a statement this morning. “We worked to build a balanced, common-sense package that ensures quality, affordable coverage and doesn’t add a dime to the deficit.”

The long-awaited bill sets off a battle over what could be the shape of a health reform deal that wins at least one or two Republicans votes in the Senate. By trying to add measures to appeal to some Democrats and some Republicans, Baucus has managed to upset all sides. But what he came up with could be viewed as the kind of balanced approach that threads the needle to achieve a final compromise.

The next challenge for the Baucus and the Senate leadership is to get the bill out of committee – but after that, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will need to merge the Finance bill with one approved in July by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The two Senate bills are expected to differ on subsidy levels, the Medicaid expansion and the creation of a competitor to private insurers. There are also significant differences with the House bill.

None of the three Republicans involved in the bipartisan negotiations have signed onto the bill, saying there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved. But they said they would continue talking with Baucus and the other two Democrats in the so-called Gang of Six.

“Unfortunately, there are fundamental issues that we were not able to resolve by the deadline that was set for us,” said Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), adding that he was “deeply disappointed” at the outcome.

The proposal, he said, “still spends too much and...does too little to cut health care costs for those with health insurance.”

The lack of Republican support — at the outset, at least — suggests Democrats will need to make more concessions if they hope to produce a bipartisan bill. Otherwise, the Senate leadership may have to use a last-ditch procedural maneuver known as reconciliation to move the bill through the chamber with 51 votes.

The absence of Republicans could also damage President Barack Obama's efforts to convince Americans that his reform plan has broad support.

“This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy.

The Finance Committee markup is expected to begin Tuesday. Baucus will meet Thursday with the full committee, and amendments will be due Friday at 5 p.m.

The Baucus plan is a more conservative approach than those produced by three committees in the House and by the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but it tracks closely with the concepts that Obama promoted in his speech to Congress last week. The bill is deficit neutral and fully paid for, and less costly than bills approved by other committees.

Baucus chose an alternative to the public insurance option – nongovernmental consumer cooperatives – to provide competition with private insurers.

The bill requires individuals to buy insurance, or else face a penalty of between $750 and $950 annually, depending on income level, and a maximum of $3,800 for families with incomes 300 percent of the poverty line. The Senate HELP bill sets the fine at $750 per year, while the House bill levies a two percent tax on the adjusted gross income of an individual who does buy insurance.

The Finance Committee bill would not mandate businesses to provide coverage for their employees – as the House and Senate HELP bill does – but it would require them to defray the cost of any government subsidies for which their employees would qualify.

To pay for the overhaul, the legislation calls for raising $214 billion through a 35 percent excise tax on high-end insurance plans, assessing $93 billion in fees on industry players, including device manufacturers, insurers and clinical laboratories, and making a series of tax code changes.

Similar to the House bill, the Finance legislation expands Medicaid coverage to include adults whose incomes are 133 percent above the poverty line, and requires states to pick up more of the tab for the federal-state cost-sharing program. The Senate HELP bill did not address the Medicaid expansion.

Government subsidies would be available to families between 100 percent and 300 percent of the poverty line to purchase insurance plans through a new marketplace known as an exchange. In the House and Senate HELP bills, the subsidies would go up to 400 percent of poverty.

For families with incomes 300 percent and 400 percent of poverty, their annual premiums would be capped at 13 percent of their income -- a level that is higher than what the House bill proposes, drawing fire from Democrats such as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the likeliest Republicans to support the bill, said she is waiting for cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, which she has not yet seen.

"Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," Snowe said Tuesday.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a statement Tuesday that was silent on his ultimate decision, but the tone of his message does not bode well for Baucus’s hopes of bringing him on board.

He ticked off a long list of concerns, saying the bill “does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage,” and it does not resolve outstanding issues dealing with abortion and illegal immigration. He suggested the bill does not include his alternative proposal to the individual mandate, nor does it include stronger medical liability reform measures he had pushed.

“We’ve been clear from the start that we’re willing to stay at the table,” Grassley said. “There’s no reason not to keep working until we get it right. In the end, legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support.”

The bill drew criticism from across the political spectrum Wednesday.

The conservative Club for Growth described the bill in a statement as "every bit as lethal as the government-run plan so loudly denounced across the nation last month. Clearly, President Obama and his congressional allies don't realize the country has rejected what they’re proposing.

Consumer Watchdog, a good government group, rapped the plan for allowing middle class families to continue to pay up to 20 percent of the annual income on health care coverage, and imposing steep fines on Americans who do not buy coverage.

“Government cannot force families to pay more than their mortgage to purchase coverage from a for-profit insurer,” said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. “Yet if families paying more than 10% are automatically exempted from the law, they will still be without health care. It’s an impossible bind, and tough, transparent regulation is the right start to fixing it.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Why is he not being the good guy he told us he would be?

2009-09-16T09:17:00.002-05:00

What's the deal Obama? You're doing the opposite of what you told us you were going to do in the campaign (aside from adding more troops to Afghanistan - you're all about that still). No wonder approval ratings are sinking - the smart people who are supposed to like you are watching you pull this kind of BS. Come on now.

The article below was pulled from MSNBC.

Obama backs extending Patriot Act provisions
Measures are due to expire at end of year

updated 2:28 p.m. CT, Tues., Sept . 15, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the U.S. Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in U.S. constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law "provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions)."

Leahy responded with a statement saying it is important for the administration and Congress to "work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties."

The committee has scheduled a hearing next week on the Patriot Act.

From 2004 to 2007, the business records provision was used 220 times, officials said. Most often, the business records were requested in combination with requests for phone records.

Roving wiretaps
The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations.

The roving wiretaps provision was designed to allow investigators to quickly monitor the communications of a suspects who change their cell phone or communication device, without investigators having to go back to court for a new court authorization. That provision has been used an average of 22 times a year, officials said.

Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration's position "a mixed bag," and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues, particularly the collecting of international communications, and a specific bar on surveillance of activities protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment such as peaceful protests or religious assembly.

"We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress," Richardson said, adding that is "definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

So basically, they're still going to do it, but they're going to consider giving you minor concessions so you're complacent with their invasion of Americans' privacy. Awesome. Thank you, I love complacency. It's how Nazi Germany and Communist Russia happened. Extreme, yes, but nonetheless true.

And what tangible GOOD has come from the Patriot Act? Really? I mean, it's under so much fire if any good came from it they'd wave it around in our faces to prove they were right. Instead they just say "Trust us, it's for your own good." How is this happening?

And what plans do they have for the lone wolf provision? Seems scary. "We have no proof you've done anything wrong, but we want the option to punish you." Sounds McCarthy-esque.

This is not a good way to start the morning. I'm all grr and such.

You Tube!

2009-09-14T14:09:00.003-05:00

Courtesy of Bob Collins

This is my friend. He is one year and two days older than me and was my adopted big brother when we went to Italy. He's pretty much awesome. And he sings really really prettily.

I want this. So awesome.

"I agree" isn't strong enough

2009-09-14T13:18:00.000-05:00

Huffington Post article

I haven't watched the video, but based on the summary it sounds like she had some good things to day.

Zombies

2009-09-10T11:20:00.002-05:00

Okay, Charlie and I are going to the zombie pub crawl in October. Yesterday I asked him what kind of a zombie he was going to be because I was trying to figure that question out myself.

He responded with the first thing that came to mind.

"I'm going to be 'Death of a Salesman.'"

Yes, he's going to be an undead Willy Loman. He's going to have the suit, the case, the hat, everything.

Now I need to come up with something as good as "Death of a Salesman" for my zombie costume. Any suggestions?

Picasso

2009-09-08T20:54:00.003-05:00

"Art is a lie which helps us realize the truth."

Picasso said that. It was the opening quote to the new book I'm reading - "My Name is Asher Lev." And while I could talk about how I really love Chaim Potok - and I do - I'm more interested in the quote he picked.

Because I agree.

Completely. I love quotes describing art and art's purpose because I have such a hard time doing it myself. And there is some part of me, deep inside, that feels exactly that way - art is a lie attempting to expose the truth.

Perhaps that's why I don't feel qualified to make any art. I have no firm grasp on what "the truth" could be.

And so I'm condemned to a life a study, wishing I could make art, but only being able to study it instead. Perhaps in old age, once I have more wisdom (and I hope I can eventually acquire wisdom, but that's "The Giver" and I've moved onto "My Name is Asher Lev" now), I'll be able to create the art I admire.

Or maybe I'll just spend the rest of my life admiring it and accepting that I'll never really know the truth but I'll be well versed in a good deal of options.

This is just sad

2009-09-02T11:47:00.002-05:00

An article on Politico today talks about a contracted guard group - hired by the United States - throwing parties on days off, eating potato chips and drinking vodka out of butt cracks, urinating on themselves.

“You will see that they have a group of sexual predators, deviants, running rampant over there,” one guard, whose name was withheld, said in an e-mail to POGO, adding, “They are showing poor judgment."

How did we come to hire these people? Why do we have hired military in Afghanistan, anyway, what business is it of ours? Really, what's the point in that and is it the best way to spend money? We've got a several trillion dollar deficit and we're paying a $187 million contract for this?

And guess what, we already knew they were screw ups! The article says they were given a warning in 2007.

But it's all cool guys, because a month ago the white house finally made it's departments print on both sides of the paper to save money, so don't worry.

These things have got to be way more complicated than they seem otherwise this would all just be way too frustrating.

Sometimes my lil sis makes me so proud

2009-09-01T10:26:00.001-05:00

She joined this after school group:

Do you like discussing current events, historic affairs, morals and views, and other important topics? Then join RAHS Colloquium! This is the first group at RAHS to offer casual and non-debate forums. Meet other students who have an interest in the world around them and want to share their ideas. Each week we will discuss a new and interesting topic.

We will meet on Wednesdays after school. At the end of each meeting, we will draw a topic for next week. This will give a whole week to research and get a view on an issue!

As for whether or not it actually happens, we'll see, but the fact that her group of friends is trying for this is pretty damn awesome. Sometimes kids can be cool.

Nerd fun

2009-08-31T15:45:00.000-05:00

Click for some Lit. Nerd Fun!

(fun and nerd are now proper nouns)

Ugh

2009-08-31T14:24:00.000-05:00

From Reuters:
U.S. military ends journalist profiling contract
KABUL (Reuters) – The U.S. military is cancelling a contract with a public relations firm after coming under criticism for using the company to rate the output of journalists reporting on the Afghanistan war.
The Rendon Group had provided profiles of journalists that rated their output as "positive," "neutral" or "negative," although the military said it did not use the ratings to manipulate coverage or deny reporters access to cover the war.
"The Bagram Regional Contracting Center intends to execute a termination of the media analyst contract ... for the convenience of the U.S. government," military spokeswoman Lieutenant Commander Christine Sidenstricker said.
The contract -- worth $1.5 million -- with the Washington-based firm was first revealed last week in the military's own Pentagon-funded but editorially independent newspaper, Stars and Stripes.
The paper said the profiles included suggestions on how to "neutralize" negative stories and generate favorable coverage.
The profiles had been sharply criticized by journalism advocacy groups.
"It strips away any pretence that the army is interested in helping journalists to work freely. It suggests they are more interested in propaganda than honest reporting," Aidan White, general secretary of the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists, said last week.
Commanders denied they used the profiles to attempt to influence coverage, or to determine which journalists would be allowed to accompany troops on "embedded" assignments.

Copied and pasted - thank you, Lindsey, many people need to read this

2009-08-27T09:43:00.000-05:00

POLICY SEPTEMBER 2009
After the needless death of his father, the author, a business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues, that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a radical solution to an agonizing problem.
by David Goldhill
How American Health Care Killed My Father

ALMOST TWO YEARS ago, my father was killed by a hospital-borne infection in the intensive-care unit of a well-regarded nonprofit hospital in New York City. Dad had just turned 83, and he had a variety of the ailments common to men of his age. But he was still working on the day he walked into the hospital with pneumonia. Within 36 hours, he had developed sepsis. Over the next five weeks in the ICU, a wave of secondary infections, also acquired in the hospital, overwhelmed his defenses. My dad became a statistic—merely one of the roughly 100,000 Americans whose deaths are caused or influenced by infections picked up in hospitals. One hundred thousand deaths: more than double the number of people killed in car crashes, five times the number killed in homicides, 20 times the total number of our armed forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another victim in a building American tragedy.

About a week after my father’s death, The New Yorker ran an article by Atul Gawande profiling the efforts of Dr. Peter Pronovost to reduce the incidence of fatal hospital-borne infections. Pronovost’s solution? A simple checklist of ICU protocols governing physician hand-washing and other basic sterilization procedures. Hospitals implementing Pronovost’s checklist had enjoyed almost instantaneous success, reducing hospital-infection rates by two-thirds within the first three months of its adoption. But many physicians rejected the checklist as an unnecessary and belittling bureaucratic intrusion, and many hospital executives were reluctant to push it on them. The story chronicled Pronovost’s travels around the country as he struggled to persuade hospitals to embrace his reform.

It was a heroic story, but to me, it was also deeply unsettling. How was it possible that Pronovost needed to beg hospitals to adopt an essentially cost-free idea that saved so many lives? Here’s an industry that loudly protests the high cost of liability insurance and the injustice of our tort system and yet needs extensive lobbying to embrace a simple technique to save up to 100,000 people.

And what about us—the patients? How does a nation that might close down a business for a single illness from a suspicious hamburger tolerate the carnage inflicted by our hospitals? And not just those 100,000 deaths. In April, a Wall Street Journal story suggested that blood clots following surgery or illness, the leading cause of preventable hospital deaths in the U.S., may kill nearly 200,000 patients per year. How did Americans learn to accept hundreds of thousands of deaths from minor medical mistakes as an inevitability?

My survivor’s grief has taken the form of an obsession with our health-care system. For more than a year, I’ve been reading as much as I can get my hands on, talking to doctors and patients, and asking a lot of questions.

Keeping Dad company in the hospital for five weeks had left me befuddled. How can a facility featuring state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment use less-sophisticated information technology than my local sushi bar? How can the ICU stress the importance of sterility when its trash is picked up once daily, and only after flowing onto the floor of a patient’s room? Considering the importance of a patient’s frame of mind to recovery, why are the rooms so cheerless and uncomfortable? In whose interest is the bizarre scheduling of hospital shifts, so that a five-week stay brings an endless string of new personnel assigned to a patient’s care? Why, in other words, has this technologically advanced hospital missed out on the revolution in quality control and customer service that has swept all other consumer-facing industries in the past two generations?

I’m a businessman, and in no sense a health-care expert. But the persistence of bad industry practices—from long lines at the doctor’s office to ever-rising prices to astonishing numbers of preventable deaths—seems beyond all normal logic, and must have an underlying cause. There needs to be a business reason why an industry, year in and year out, would be able to get away with poor customer service, unaffordable prices, and uneven results—a reason my father and so many others are unnecessarily killed.

Like every grieving family member, I looked for someone to blame for my father’s death. But my dad’s doctors weren’t incompetent—on the contrary, his hospital physicians were smart, thoughtful, and hard-working. Nor is he dead because of indifferent nursing—without exception, his nurses were dedicated and compassionate. Nor from financial limitations—he was a Medicare patient, and the issue of expense was never once raised. There were no greedy pharmaceutical companies, evil health insurers, or other popular villains in his particular tragedy.

Indeed, I suspect that our collective search for villains—for someone to blame—has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our nation’s health-care crisis. All of the actors in health care—from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies—work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity, and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that—most important—remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer of value.

These are the impersonal forces, I’ve come to believe, that explain why things have gone so badly wrong in health care, producing the national dilemma of runaway costs and poorly covered millions. The problems I’ve explored in the past year hardly count as breakthrough discoveries—health-care experts undoubtedly view all of them as old news. But some experts, it seems, have come to see many of these problems as inevitable in any health-care system—as conditions to be patched up, papered over, or worked around, but not problems to be solved.

That’s the premise behind today’s incremental approach to health-care reform. Though details of the legislation are still being negotiated, its principles are a reprise of previous reforms—addressing access to health care by expanding government aid to those without adequate insurance, while attempting to control rising costs through centrally administered initiatives. Some of the ideas now on the table may well be sensible in the context of our current system. But fundamentally, the “comprehensive” reform being contemplated merely cements in place the current system—insurance-based, employment-centered, administratively complex. It addresses the underlying causes of our health-care crisis only obliquely, if at all; indeed, by extending the current system to more people, it will likely increase the ultimate cost of true reform.

I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

These ideas stand well outside the emerging political consensus about reform. So before exploring alternative policies, let’s reexamine our basic assumptions about health care—what it actually is, how it’s financed, its accountability to patients, and finally its relationship to the eternal laws of supply and demand. Everyone I know has at least one personal story about how screwed up our health-care system is; before spending (another) $1trillion or so on reform, we need a much clearer understanding of the causes of the problems we all experience.

Illustration by Stephen Savage

Health Care Isn’t Health (Or Happiness)
“Money is honey,” my grandmother used to tell me, “but health is wealth.” She said “health,” not “health care.” Listening to debates over health-care reform, it is sometimes difficult to remember that there is a difference.

Medical care, of course, is merely one component of our overall health. Nutrition, exercise, education, emotional security, our natural environment, and public safety may now be more important than care in producing further advances in longevity and quality of life. (In 2005, almost half of all deaths in the U.S. resulted from heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, homicide, suicide, and accidents—all of which are arguably influenced as much by lifestyle choices and living environment as by health care.) And of course even health itself is only one aspect of personal fulfillment, alongside family and friends, travel, recreation, the pursuit of knowledge and experience, and more.

Yet spending on health care, by families and by the government, is crowding out spending on almost everything else. As a nation, we now spend almost 18 percent of our GDP on health care. In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising. Already, the federal government spends eight times as much on health care as it does on education, 12 times what it spends on food aid to children and families, 30 times what it spends on law enforcement, 78 times what it spends on land management and conservation, 87 times the spending on water supply, and 830 times the spending on energy conservation. Education, public safety, environment, infrastructure—all other public priorities are being slowly devoured by the health-care beast.

It’s no different for families. From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. economy grew by $4.4 trillion; of that growth, roughly one out of every four dollars was spent on health care. Household expenditures on health care already exceed those on housing. And health care’s share is growing.

By what mechanism does society determine that an extra, say, $100 billion for health care will make us healthier than even $10 billion for cleaner air or water, or $25 billion for better nutrition, or $5 billion for parks, or $10 billion for recreation, or $50 billion in additional vacation time—or all of those alternatives combined?

The answer is, no mechanism at all. Health care simply keeps gobbling up national resources, seemingly without regard to other societal needs; it’s treated as an island that doesn’t touch or affect the rest of the economy. As new tests and treatments are developed, they are, for the most part, added to our Medicare or commercial insurance policies, no matter what they cost. But of course the money must come from somewhere. If the amount we spend on care had grown only at the general rate of inflation since 1970, annual health-care costs now would be roughly $5,000 less per American—that’s about 10 percent of today’s median income, to invest for the future or to spend on all the other things that contribute to our well-being. To be sure, our society has become wealthier over the years, and we’d naturally want to spend some of this new wealth on more and better health care; but how did we choose to spend this much?

The housing bubble offers some important lessons for health-care policy. The claim that something—whether housing or health care—is an undersupplied social good is commonly used to justify government intervention, and policy makers have long striven to make housing more affordable. But by making housing investments eligible for special tax benefits and subsidized borrowing rates, the government has stimulated not only the construction of more houses but also the willingness of people to borrow and spend more on houses than they otherwise would have. The result is now tragically clear.

As with housing, directing so much of society’s resources to health care is stimulating the provision of vastly more care. Along the way, it’s also distorting demand, raising prices, and making us all poorer by crowding out other, possibly more beneficial, uses for the resources now air-dropped onto the island of health care. Why do we view health care as disconnected from everything else? Why do we spend so much on it? And why, ultimately, do we get such inconsistent results? Any discussion of the ills within the system must begin with a hard look at the tax-advantaged comprehensive-insurance industry at its center.

Health Insurance Isn’t Health Care
How often have you heard a politician say that millions of Americans “have no health care,” when he or she meant they have no health insurance? How has a method of financing health care become synonymous with care itself?

The reason for financing at least some of our health care with an insurance system is obvious. We all worry that a serious illness or an accident might one day require urgent, extensive care, imposing an extreme financial burden on us. In this sense, health-care insurance is just like all other forms of insurance—life, property, liability—where the many who face a risk share the cost incurred by the few who actually suffer a loss.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense.

Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.

Illustration by Stephen Savage

The Moral-Hazard Economy
Society’s excess cost from health insurance’s administrative expense pales next to the damage caused by “moral hazard”—the tendency we all have to change our behavior, becoming spendthrifts and otherwise taking less care with our decisions, when someone else is covering the costs. Needless to say, much medical care is unavoidable; we don’t choose to become sick, nor do we seek more treatment than we think we need. Still, hospitals, drug companies, health insurers, and medical-device manufacturers now spend roughly $6 billion a year on advertising. If the demand for health care is purely a response to unavoidable medical need, why do these companies do so much advertising?

Medical ads on TV typically inform the viewer that a specific treatment—a drug, device, surgical procedure—is available for a chronic condition. Many also note that the product or treatment is eligible for Medicare or private-insurance reimbursement. In some cases, the advertiser will offer to help the patient obtain that reimbursement. The key message: you can benefit from this product and pass the bill on to someone else.

Every time you walk into a doctor’s office, it’s implicit that someone else will be paying most or all of your bill; for most of us, that means we give less attention to prices for medical services than we do to prices for anything else. Most physicians, meanwhile, benefit financially from ordering diagnostic tests, doing procedures, and scheduling follow-up appointments. Combine these two features of the system with a third—the informational advantage that extensive training has given physicians over their patients, and the authority that advantage confers—and you have a system where physicians can, to some extent, generate demand at will.

Do they? Well, Medicare spends almost twice as much per patient in Dallas, where there are more doctors and care facilities per resident, as it does in Salem, Oregon, where supply is tighter. Why? Because doctors (particularly specialists) in surplus areas order more tests and treatments per capita, and keep their practices busy. Many studies have shown that the patients in areas like Dallas do not benefit in any measurable way from all this extra care. All of the physicians I know are genuinely dedicated to their patients. But at the margin, all of us are at least subconsciously influenced by our own economic interests. The data are clear: in our current system, physician supply often begets patient demand.

Moral hazard has fostered an accidental collusion between providers benefiting from higher costs and patients who don’t fully bear them. In this environment, trying to control costs is awfully tough. When Medicare cut reimbursement rates in 2005 on chemotherapy and anemia drugs, for instance, it saved almost 20 percent of the previously billed costs. But Medicare’s total cancer-treatment costs actually rose almost immediately. As The New York Times reported, some physicians believed their colleagues simply performed more treatments, particularly higher-profit ones.

Want further evidence of moral hazard? The average insured American and the average uninsured American spend very similar amounts of their own money on health care each year—$654 and $583, respectively. But they spend wildly different amounts of other people’s money—$3,809 and $1,103, respectively. Sometimes the uninsured do not get highly beneficial treatments because they cannot afford them at today’s prices—something any reform must address. But likewise, insured patients often get only marginally beneficial (or even outright unnecessary) care at mind-boggling cost. If it’s true that the insurance system leads us to focus on only our direct share of costs—rather than the total cost to society—it’s not surprising that insured families and uninsured ones would make similar decisions as to how much of their own money to spend on care, but very different decisions on the total amount to consume.

The unfortunate fact is, health-care demand has no natural limit. Our society will always keep creating new treatments to cure previously incurable problems. Some of these will save lives or add productive years to them; many will simply make us more comfortable. That’s all to the good. But the cost of this comfort, and whether it’s really worthwhile, is never calculated—by anyone. For almost all our health-care needs, the current system allows us as consumers to ask providers, “What’s my share?” instead of “How much does this cost?”—a question we ask before buying any other good or service. And the subtle difference between those two questions is costing us all a fortune.

There’s No One Else to Pay the Bill
Perhaps the greatest problem posed by our health-insurance-driven regime is the sense it creates that someone else is actually paying for most of our health care—and that the costs of new benefits can also be borne by someone else. Unfortunately, there is no one else.

For fun, let’s imagine confiscating all the profits of all the famously greedy health-insurance companies. That would pay for four days of health care for all Americans. Let’s add in the profits of the 10 biggest rapacious U.S. drug companies. Another 7 days. Indeed, confiscating all the profits of all American companies, in every industry, wouldn’t cover even five months of our health-care expenses.

Somebody else always seems to be paying for at least part of our health care. But that’s just an illusion. At $2.4 trillion and growing, our nation’s health-care bill is too big to be paid by anyone other than all of us.

In 2007, employer-based health insurance cost, on average, more than $12,000 per family, up 78 percent since 2001. I’ve run several companies and company divisions of various sizes over the course of my career, so I can confidently tell you that raises (and even entry-level hiring) are tightly limited by rising health-care costs. You may think your employer is paying for your health care, but in fact your company’s share of the insurance premium comes out of your potential wage increase. Where else could it come from?

Let’s say you’re a 22-year-old single employee at my company today, starting out at a $30,000 annual salary. Let’s assume you’ll get married in six years, support two children for 20 years, retire at 65, and die at 80. Now let’s make a crazy assumption: insurance premiums, Medicare taxes and premiums, and out-of-pocket costs will grow no faster than your earnings—say, 3 percent a year. By the end of your working days, your annual salary will be up to $107,000. And over your lifetime, you and your employer together will have paid $1.77 million for your family’s health care. $1.77 million! And that’s only after assuming the taming of costs! In recent years, health-care costs have actually grown 2 to 3 percent faster than the economy. If that continues, your 22-year-old self is looking at an additional $2 million or so in expenses over your lifetime—roughly $4 million in total.

Would you have guessed these numbers were so large? If not, you have good cause: only a quarter would be paid by you directly (and much of that after retirement). The rest would be spent by others on your behalf, deducted from your earnings before you received your paycheck. And that’s a big reason why our health-care system is so expensive.

The Government Is Not Good at Cost Reduction
Every proposal for health-care reform has featured some element of cost control to “balance” the inflationary impact of expanding access. Yet it goes without saying that in the big picture, all government efforts to control costs have failed.

Why? One reason is a fixation on prices rather than costs. The government regularly tries to cap costs by limiting the reimbursement rates paid to providers by Medicare and Medicaid, and generally pays much less for each service than private insurers. But as we’ve seen, that can lead providers to perform more services, and to steer patients toward higher-priced, more lightly regulated treatments. The government’s efforts to expand “access” to care while limiting costs are like blowing up a balloon while simultaneously squeezing it. The balloon continues to inflate, but in misshapen form.

Cost control is a feature of decentralized, competitive markets, not of centralized bureaucracy—a matter of incentives, not mandates. What’s more, cost control is dynamic. Even the simplest business faces constant variation in its costs for labor, facilities, and capital; to compete, management must react quickly, efficiently, and, most often, prospectively. By contrast, government bureaucracies set regulations and reimbursement rates through carefully evaluated and broadly applied rules. These bureaucracies first must notice market changes and resource misallocations, and then (sometimes subject to political considerations) issue additional regulations or change reimbursement rates to address each problem retrospectively.

As a result, strange distortions crop up constantly in health care. For example, although the population is rapidly aging, we have few geriatricians—physicians who address the cluster of common patient issues related to aging, often crossing traditional specialty lines. Why? Because under Medicare’s current reimbursement system (which generally pays more to physicians who do lots of tests and procedures), geriatricians typically don’t make much money. If seniors were the true customers, they would likely flock to geriatricians, bidding up their rates—and sending a useful signal to medical-school students. But Medicare is the real customer, and it pays more to specialists in established fields. And so, seniors often end up overusing specialists who are not focused on their specific health needs.

Many reformers believe if we could only adopt a single-payer system, we could deliver health care more cheaply than we do today. The experience of other developed countries suggests that’s true: the government as single payer would have lower administrative costs than private insurers, as well as enormous market clout and the ability to bring down prices, although at the cost of explicitly rationing care.

But even leaving aside the effects of price controls on innovation and customer service, today’s Medicare system should leave us skeptical about the long-term viability of that approach. From 2000 to 2007, despite its market power, Medicare’s hospital and physician reimbursements per enrollee rose by 5.4 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively, per year. As currently structured, Medicare is a Ponzi scheme. The Medicare tax rate has been raised seven times since its enactment, and almost certainly will need to be raised again in the next decade. The Medicare tax contributions and premiums that today’s beneficiaries have paid into the system don’t come close to fully funding their care, which today’s workers subsidize. The subsidy is getting larger even as it becomes more difficult to maintain: next year there will be 3.7 working people for each Medicare beneficiary; if you’re in your mid-40s today, there will be only 2.4 workers to subsidize your care when you hit retirement age. The experience of other rich nations should also make us skeptical. Whatever their histories, nearly all developed countries are now struggling with rapidly rising health-care costs, including those with single-payer systems. From 2000 to 2005, per capita health-care spending in Canada grew by 33 percent, in France by 37 percent, in the U.K. by 47 percent—all comparable to the 40 percent growth experienced by the U.S. in that period. Cost control by way of bureaucratic price controls has its limits.

Uncompetitive
In 2007, health companies in the Fortune 1,000 earned $71 billion. Of the 52 industries represented on Fortune’s list, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment ranked third and fourth, respectively, in terms of profits as a share of revenue. From 2000 to 2007, the annual profits of America’s top 15 health-insurance companies increased from $3.5 billion to $15 billion.

In competitive markets, high profits serve an important social purpose: encouraging capital to flow to the production of a service not adequately supplied. But as long as our government shovels ever-greater resources into health care with one hand, while with the other restricting competition that would ensure those resources are used efficiently, sustained high profits will be the rule.

Health care is an exceptionally heavily regulated industry. Health-insurance companies are regulated by states, which limits interstate competition. And many of the materials, machines, and even software programs used by health-care facilities must be licensed by state or federal authorities, or approved for use by Medicare; these requirements form large barriers to entry for both new facilities and new vendors that could equip and supply them.

Many health-care regulations are justified as safety precautions. But many also result from attempts to redress the distortions that our system of financing health care has created. And whatever their purpose, almost all of these regulations can be shaped over time by the powerful institutions that dominate the health-care landscape, and that are often looking to protect themselves from competition.

Take the ongoing battle between large integrated hospitals and specialty clinics (for cardiac surgery, orthopedics, maternity, etc.). The economic threat posed by these facilities is well illustrated by a recent battle in Loma Linda, California. When a group of doctors proposed a 28-bed private specialty facility, the local hospitals protested to the city council that it was unnecessary, and launched a publicity campaign to try to block it; the council backed the facility anyway. So the nonprofit Loma Linda University Medical Center simply bought the new facility for $80 million in 2008. Traditional hospitals got Congress to include an 18-month moratorium on new specialty hospitals in the 2003 Medicare law, and a second six-month ban in 2005.

The hospitals’ argument has some merit: less complicated surgical cases (the kind specialty clinics typically take on) tend to be more profitable than complex surgeries and nonsurgical admissions. Without those profitable cases, hospitals can’t subsidize the cases on which they lose money. But why are simple surgeries more profitable? Because of the nonmarket methods by which Medicare sets prices.

The net effect of the endless layers of health-care regulation is to stifle competition in the classic economic sense. What we have instead is a noncompetitive system where services and reimbursement are negotiated above consumers’ heads by large private and government institutions. And the primary goal of any large noncompetitive institution is not cost control or product innovation or customer service: it’s maintenance of the status quo.

Our Favored Hospitals
In 1751, Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Thomas Bond founded Pennsylvania Hospital, the first in America, “to care for the sick-poor and insane who were wandering the streets of Philadelphia.” Since then, hospitals have come to dominate the American medical landscape. Yet in recent decades, the rationale for concentrating so much care under one roof has diminished steadily. Many hospitals still exist in their current form largely because they are protected by regulation and favored by government payment policies, which effectively maintain the existing industrial structure, rather than encouraging innovation.

Between 1970 and 2006, annual Medicare payments to hospitals grew by roughly 3,800 percent, from $5 billion to $192 billion. Total annual hospital-care costs for all patients grew from $28 billion to almost $650 billion during that same period. Since 1975, hospitals’ enormous revenue growth has occurred despite a 35 percent decline in the number of hospital beds, no meaningful increase in total admissions, and an almost 50 percent decline in the average length of stay. High-tech equipment has been dispersed to medical practices, recovery periods after major procedures have shrunk, and pharmaceutical therapies have grown in importance, yet over the past 40 years, hospitals have managed to retain the same share (roughly one-third) of our nation’s health-care bill.

Hospitals have sought to use the laws and regulations originally designed to serve patients to preserve their business model. Their argument is the same one that’s been made before by regulated railroads, electric utilities, airlines, Ma Bell, and banks: new competitors, they say, are using their cost advantages to skim off the best customers; without those customers, the incumbents will no longer be able to subsidize essential services that no one can profitably provide to the public.

Hospitals are indeed required to provide emergency care to any walk-in patient, and this obligation is a meaningful public service. But how do we know whether the charitable benefit from this requirement justifies the social cost of expensive hospital care and poor quality? We don’t know. Our system of health-care law and regulation has so distorted the functioning of the market that it’s impossible to measure the social costs and benefits of maintaining hospitals’ prominence. And again, the distortions caused by a reluctance to pay directly for health care—in this case, emergency medicine for the poor—are in large part to blame.

Consider the oft-quoted “statistic” that emergency-room care is the most expensive form of treatment. Has anyone who believes this ever actually been to an emergency room? My sister is an emergency-medicine physician; unlike most other specialists, ER docs usually work on scheduled shifts and are paid fixed salaries that place them in the lower ranks of physician compensation. The doctors and other workers are hardly underemployed: typically, ERs are unbelievably crowded. They have access to the facilities and equipment of the entire hospital, but require very few dedicated resources of their own. They benefit from the group buying power of the entire institution. No expensive art decorates the walls, and the waiting rooms resemble train-station waiting areas. So what exactly makes an ER more expensive than other forms of treatment?

Perhaps it’s the accounting. Since charity care, which is often performed in the ER, is one justification for hospitals’ protected place in law and regulation, it’s in hospitals’ interest to shift costs from overhead and other parts of the hospital to the ER, so that the costs of charity care—the public service that hospitals are providing—will appear to be high. Hospitals certainly lose money on their ERs; after all, many of their customers pay nothing. But to argue that ERs are costly compared with other treatment options, hospitals need to claim expenses well beyond the marginal (or incremental) cost of serving ER patients.

In a recent IRS survey of almost 500 nonprofit hospitals, nearly 60 percent reported providing charity care equal to less than 5 percent of their total revenue, and about 20 percent reported providing less than 2 percent. Analyzing data from the American Hospital Directory, The Wall Street Journal found that the 50 largest nonprofit hospitals or hospital systems made a combined “net income” (that is, profit) of $4.27 billion in 2006, nearly eight times their profits five years earlier.

How do we know whether the value of hospitals’ charitable services compensates for the roughly 100,000 deaths from hospital-borne disease, their poor standards of customer service, and their extraordinary diseconomies of both scale and scope? Might we be better off reforming hospitals, and allowing many of them to be eliminated by competition from specialty clinics? As a society, couldn’t we just pay directly for the services required by the poor? We don’t know how many hospitals would even survive if they were not so favored under the law; anyone who has lost a loved one to a preventable hospital death will wonder how many should.

You Are Not the Customer
What amazed me most during five weeks in the ICU with my dad was the survival of paper and pen for medical instructions and histories. In that time, Dad was twice taken for surgical procedures intended for other patients (fortunately interrupted both times by our intervention). My dry cleaner uses a more elaborate system to track shirts than this hospital used to track treatment.

Not every hospital relies on paper-based orders and charts, but most still do. Why has adoption of clinical information technology been so slow? Companies invest in IT to reduce their costs, reduce mistakes (itself a form of cost-saving), and improve customer service. Better information technology would have improved my father’s experience in the ICU—and possibly his chances of survival.

But my father was not the customer; Medicare was. And although Medicare has experimented with new reimbursement approaches to drive better results, no centralized reimbursement system can be supple enough to address the many variables affecting the patient experience. Certainly, Medicare wasn’t paying for the quality of service during my dad’s hospital stay. And it wasn’t really paying for the quality of his care, either; indeed, because my dad got sepsis in the hospital, and had to spend weeks there before his death, the hospital was able to charge a lot more for his care than if it had successfully treated his pneumonia and sent him home in days.

Of course, one area of health-related IT has received substantial investment—billing. So much for the argument, often made, that privacy concerns or a lack of agreed-upon standards has prevented the development of clinical IT or electronic medical records; presumably, if lack of privacy or standards had hampered the digitization of health records, it also would have prevented the digitization of the accompanying bills. To meet the needs of the government bureaucracy and insurance companies, most providers now bill on standardized electronic forms. In case you wonder who a care provider’s real customer is, try reading one of these bills.

For that matter, try discussing prices with hospitals and other providers. Eight years ago, my wife needed an MRI, but we did not have health insurance. I called up several area hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices—all within about a one-mile radius—to find the best price. I was surprised to discover that prices quoted, for an identical service, varied widely, and that the lowest price was $1,200. But what was truly astonishing was that several providers refused to quote any price. Only if I came in and actually ordered the MRI could we discuss price.

Several years later, when we were preparing for the birth of our second child, I requested the total cost of the delivery and related procedures from our hospital. The answer: the hospital discussed price only with uninsured patients. What about my co-pay? They would discuss my potential co-pay only if I were applying for financial assistance.

Keeping prices opaque is one way medical institutions seek to avoid competition and thereby keep prices up. And they get away with it in part because so few consumers pay directly for their own care—insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid are basically the whole game. But without transparency on prices—and the related data on measurable outcomes—efforts to give the consumer more control over health care have failed, and always will.

Here’s a wonderful example of price opacity. Advocates for the uninsured complain that hospitals charge uninsured patients, on average, 2.5 times the amount charged to insured patients. Hospitals defend themselves by contending that they earn from uninsured patients only 25 percent of the amount they do from insured ones. Both statements appear to be true!

How is this possible? Well, hospitals bill according to their price lists, but provide large discounts to major insurers. Individual consumers, of course, don’t benefit from these discounts, so they receive their bills at full list price (typically about 2.5 times the bill to an insured patient). Uninsured patients, however, pay according to how much of the bill the hospital believes they can afford (which, on average, amounts to 25 percent of the amount paid by an insured patient). Nonetheless, whatever discount a hospital gives to an uninsured patient is entirely at its discretion—and is typically negotiated only after the fact. Some uninsured patients have been driven into bankruptcy by hospital collections. American industry may offer no better example of pernicious “price discrimination,” nor one that entails greater financial vulnerability for American families.

It’s astonishingly difficult for consumers to find any health-care information that would enable them to make informed choices—based not just on price, but on quality of care or the rate of preventable medical errors. Here’s one place where legal requirements might help. But only a few states require institutions to make this sort of information public in a usable form for consumers. So while every city has numerous guidebooks with reviews of schools, restaurants, and spas, the public is frequently deprived of the necessary data to choose hospitals and other providers.

The Strange Beast of Health-Care Technology
One of the most widely held pieces of conventional wisdom about health care is that new technology is relentlessly driving up costs. Yet over the past 20 years, I’ve bought several generations of microwave ovens, personal computers, DVD players, GPS devices, mobile phones, and flat-screen TVs. I bank mostly at ATMs, check out my own goods at self-serve supermarket scanners, and attend company meetings by video conference. Technology has transformed much of our daily lives, in almost all cases by adding quantity, speed, and quality while lowering costs. So why is health care different?

Well, for the most part, it isn’t. Whether it’s new drugs to control previously untreatable conditions, diagnostic equipment that enhances physician productivity, or minimally invasive techniques that speed patient recovery, technology-driven innovation has been transforming care at least as greatly as it has transformed the rest of our lives.

But most health-care technologies don’t exist in the same world as other technologies. Recall the MRI my wife needed a few years ago: $1,200 for 20 minutes’ use of a then 20-year-old technology, requiring a little electricity and a little labor from a single technician and a radiologist. Why was the price so high? Most MRIs in this country are reimbursed by insurance or Medicare, and operate in the limited-competition, nontransparent world of insurance pricing. I don’t even know the price of many of the diagnostic services I’ve needed over the years—usually I’ve just gone to whatever provider my physician recommended, without asking (my personal contribution to the moral-hazard economy).

By contrast, consider LASIK surgery. I still lack the (small amount of) courage required to get LASIK. But I’ve been considering it since it was introduced commercially in the 1990s. The surgery is seldom covered by insurance, and exists in the competitive economy typical of most other industries. So people who get LASIK surgery—or for that matter most cosmetic surgeries, dental procedures, or other mostly uninsured treatments—act like consumers. If you do an Internet search today, you can find LASIK procedures quoted as low as $499 per eye—a decline of roughly 80 percent since the procedure was introduced. You’ll also find sites where doctors advertise their own higher-priced surgeries (which more typically cost about $2,000 per eye) and warn against the dangers of discount LASIK. Many ads specify the quality of equipment being used and the performance record of the doctor, in addition to price. In other words, there’s been an active, competitive market for LASIK surgery of the same sort we’re used to seeing for most goods and services.

The history of LASIK fits well with the pattern of all capital-intensive services outside the health-insurance economy. If you’re one of the first ophthalmologists in your community to perform the procedure, you can charge a high price. But once you’ve acquired the machine, the actual cost of performing a single procedure (the marginal cost) is relatively low. So, as additional ophthalmologists in the neighborhood invest in LASIK equipment, the first provider can meet new competition by cutting price. In a fully competitive marketplace, the procedure’s price will tend toward that low marginal cost, and ophthalmologists looking to buy new machines will exert downward pressure on both equipment and procedure prices.

No business likes to compete solely on price, so most technology providers seek to add features and performance improvements to new generations of a machine—anything to keep their product from becoming a pure commodity. Their success depends on whether the consumers will pay enough for the new feature to justify its introduction. In most consumer industries, we can see this dynamic in action—observe how DVD players have moved in a few years from a high-priced luxury to a disposable commodity available at discount stores. DVD players have run out of new features for which customers will pay premium prices.

Perhaps MRIs have too. After a long run of high and stable prices, you can now find ads for discount MRIs. But because of the peculiar way we pay for health care, this downward price pressure on technology seems less vigorous. How well can insurance companies and government agencies judge the value of new features that tech suppliers introduce to keep prices up? Rather than blaming technology for rising costs, we must ask if moral hazard and a lack of discipline in national health-care spending allows health-care companies to avoid the forces that make nonmedical technology so competitive.

In 2002, the U.S. had almost six times as many CT scanners per capita as Germany and four times as many MRI machines as the U.K. Traditional reformers believe it is this rate of investment that has pushed up prices, rather than sustained high prices that have pushed up investment. As a result, many states now require hospitals to obtain a Certificate of Need before making a major equipment purchase. In its own twisted way, this makes sense: moral hazard, driven by insurance, for years allowed providers to create enough demand to keep new MRI machines humming at any price.

But Certificates of Need are just another Scotch-tape reform, an effort to maintain the current system by treating a symptom rather than the underlying disease. Technology is driving up the cost of health care for the same reason every other factor of care is driving up the cost—the absence of the forces that discipline and even drive down prices in the rest of our economy. Only in the bizarre parallel universe of health care could limiting supply be seen as a sensible approach to keeping prices down.

The Limits of “Comprehensive” Health-care Reform
A wasteful insurance system; distorted incentives; a bias toward treatment; moral hazard; hidden costs and a lack of transparency; curbed competition; service to the wrong customer. These are the problems at the foundation of our health-care system, resulting in a slow rot and requiring more and more money just to keep the system from collapsing.

How would the health-care reform that’s now taking shape solve these core problems? The Obama administration and Congress are still working out the details, but it looks like this generation of “comprehensive” reform will not address the underlying issues, any more than previous efforts did. Instead it will put yet more patches on the walls of an edifice that is fundamentally unsound—and then build that edifice higher.

A central feature of the reform plan is the expansion of comprehensive health insurance to most of the 46 million Americans who now lack private or public insurance. Whether this would be achieved entirely through the extension of private commercial insurance at government-subsidized rates, or through the creation of a “public option,” perhaps modeled on Medicare, is still being debated.

Regardless, the administration has suggested a cost to taxpayers of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That, of course, will mean another $1 trillion or more not spent on other things—environment, education, nutrition, recreation. And if the history of previous attempts to expand the health safety net are any guide, that estimate will prove low.

The reform plan will also feature a variety of centrally administered initiatives designed to reduce costs and improve quality. These will likely include a major government investment to promote digitization of patient health records, an effort to collect information on best clinical practices, and changes in the way providers are paid, to better reward quality and deter wasteful spending.

All of these initiatives have some theoretical appeal. And within the confines of the current system, all may do some good. But for the most part, they simply do not address the root causes of poor quality and runaway costs.

Consider information technology, for instance. Of course the health system could benefit from better use of IT. The Rand Corporation has estimated that the widespread use of electronic medical records would eventually yield annual savings of $81 billion, while also improving care and reducing preventable deaths, and the White House estimates that creating and spreading the technology would cost just $50 billion. But in what other industry would an investment with such a massive annual return not be funded by the industry itself? (And while $50 billion may sound like a big investment, it’s only about 2 percent of the health-care industry’s annual revenues.)

Technology is effective only when it’s properly applied. Since most physicians and health-care companies haven’t adopted electronic medical records on their own, what makes us think they will appropriately use all this new IT? Most of the benefits of the technology (record portability, a reduction in costly and dangerous clinical errors) would likely accrue to patients, not providers. In a consumer-facing industry, this alone would drive companies to make the investments to stay competitive. But of course, we patients aren’t the real customers; government funding of electronic records wouldn’t change that.

I hope that whatever reform is finally enacted this fall works—preventing people from slipping through the cracks, raising the quality standard of the health-care industry, and delivering all this at acceptable cost. But looking at the big picture, I fear it won’t. So I think we should at least begin to debate and think about larger reforms, and a different direction—if not for this round of reform, then for the next one. Politics is, of course, the art of the possible. If our health-care crisis does not abate, the possibilities for reform may expand beyond their current, tight limits.

A Way Forward
The most important single step we can take toward truly reforming our system is to move away from comprehensive health insurance as the single model for financing care. And a guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system. I believe if the government took on the goal of better supporting consumers—by bringing greater transparency and competition to the health-care industry, and by directly subsidizing those who can’t afford care—we’d find that consumers could buy much more of their care directly than we might initially think, and that over time we’d see better care and better service, at lower cost, as a result.

A more consumer-centered health-care system would not rely on a single form of financing for health-care purchases; it would make use of different sorts of financing for different elements of care—with routine care funded largely out of our incomes; major, predictable expenses (including much end-of-life care) funded by savings and credit; and massive, unpredictable expenses funded by insurance.

For years, a number of reformers have advocated a more “consumer-driven” care system—a term coined by the Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, who has written extensively on the subject. Many different steps could move us toward such a system. Here’s one approach that—although it may sound radical—makes sense to me.

First, we should replace our current web of employer- and government-based insurance with a single program of catastrophic insurance open to all Americans—indeed, all Americans should be required to buy it—with fixed premiums based solely on age. This program would be best run as a single national pool, without underwriting for specific risk factors, and would ultimately replace Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. All Americans would be insured against catastrophic illness, throughout their lives.

Proposals for true catastrophic insurance usually founder on the definition of catastrophe. So much of the amount we now spend is dedicated to problems that are considered catastrophic, the argument goes, that a separate catastrophic system is pointless. A typical catastrophic insurance policy today might cover any expenses above, say, $2,000. That threshold is far too low; ultimately, a threshold of $50,000 or more would be better. (Chronic conditions with expected annual costs above some lower threshold would also be covered.) We might consider other mechanisms to keep total costs down: the plan could be required to pay out no more in any year than its available premiums, for instance, with premium increases limited to the general rate of inflation. But the real key would be to restrict the coverage to true catastrophes—if this approach is to work, only a minority of us should ever be beneficiaries.

How would we pay for most of our health care? The same way we pay for everything else—out of our income and savings. Medicare itself is, in a sense, a form of forced savings, as is commercial insurance. In place of these programs and the premiums we now contribute to them, and along with catastrophic insurance, the government should create a new form of health savings account—a vehicle that has existed, though in imperfect form, since 2003. Every American should be required to maintain an HSA, and contribute a minimum percentage of post-tax income, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do.

All noncatastrophic care should eventually be funded out of HSAs. But account-holders should be allowed to withdraw money for any purpose, without penalty, once the funds exceed a ceiling established for each age, and at death any remaining money should be disbursed through inheritance. Our current methods of health-care funding create a “use it or lose it” imperative. This new approach would ensure that families put aside funds for future expenses, but would not force them to spend the funds only on health care.

What about care that falls through the cracks—major expenses (an appendectomy, sports injury, or birth) that might exceed the current balance of someone’s HSA but are not catastrophic? These should be funded the same way we pay for most expensive purchases that confer long-term benefits: with credit. Americans should be able to borrow against their future contributions to their HSA to cover major health needs; the government could lend directly, or provide guidelines for private lending. Catastrophic coverage should apply with no deductible for young people, but as people age and save, they should pay a steadily increasing deductible from their HSA, unless the HSA has been exhausted. As a result, much end-of-life care would be paid through savings.

Anyone with whom I discuss this approach has the same question: How am I supposed to be able to afford health care in this system? Well, what if I gave you $1.77 million? Recall, that’s how much an insured 22-year-old at my company could expect to pay—and to have paid on his and his family’s behalf—over his lifetime, assuming health-care costs are tamed. Sure, most of that money doesn’t pass through your hands now. It’s hidden in company payments for premiums, or in Medicare taxes and premiums. But think about it: If you had access to those funds over your lifetime, wouldn’t you be able to afford your own care? And wouldn’t you consume health care differently if you and your family didn’t have to spend that money only on care?

For lower-income Americans who can’t fund all of their catastrophic premiums or minimum HSA contributions, the government should fill the gap—in some cases, providing all the funding. You don’t think we spend an absurd amount of money on health care? If we abolished Medicaid, we could spend the same money to make a roughly $3,000 HSA contribution and a $2,000 catastrophic-premium payment for 60 million Americans every year. That’s a $12,000 annual HSA plus catastrophic coverage for a low-income family of four. Do we really believe most of them wouldn’t be better off?

Some experts worry that requiring people to pay directly for routine care would cause some to put off regular checkups. So here’s a solution: the government could provide vouchers to all Americans for a free checkup every two years. If everyone participated, the annual cost would be about $30 billion—a small fraction of the government’s current spending on care.

Today, insurance covers almost all health-care expenditures. The few consumers who pay from their pockets are simply an afterthought for most providers. Imagine how things might change if more people were buying their health care the way they buy anything else. I’m certain that all the obfuscation over prices would vanish pretty quickly, and that we’d see an end to unreadable bills. And that physicians, who spend an enormous amount of time on insurance-related paperwork, would have more time for patients.

In fact, as a result of our fraying insurance system, you can already see some nascent features of a consumer-centered system. Since 2006, Wal-Mart has offered $4 prescriptions for a month’s supply of common generic medications. It has also been slowly rolling out retail clinics for routine care such as physicals, blood work, and treatment for common ailments like strep throat. Prices for each service are easily obtained; most are in the neighborhood of $50 to $80. Likewise, “concierge care,” or the “boutique” style of medical practice—in which physicians provide unlimited services and fast appointments in return for a fixed monthly or annual fee—is beginning to spread from the rich to the middle class. Qliance Medical Group, for instance, now operates clinics serving some 3,000 patients in the Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, areas, charging $49 to $79 a month for unlimited primary care, defined expansively.

It’s worth pausing over this last example. Many experts believe that the U.S. would get better health outcomes at lower cost if payment to providers were structured around the management of health or whole episodes of care, instead of through piecemeal fees. Medicare and private insurers have, to various degrees, moved toward (or at least experimented with) these sorts of payments, and are continuing to do so—but slowly, haltingly, and in the face of much obstruction by providers. But aren’t we likely to see just these sorts of payment mechanisms develop organically in a consumer-centered health-care system? For simplicity and predictability, many people will prefer to pay a fixed monthly or annual fee for primary or chronic care, and providers will move to serve that demand.

Likewise, what patient, when considering getting an artificial hip, would want to deal with a confusion of multiple bills from physicians, facilities, and physical therapists? Aren’t providers likely to organize themselves to provide a single price to the consumer for care and rehabilitation? And won’t that, in itself, put pressure on providers to work together as efficiently as possible, and to minimize the medical errors that would eat into their joint fee? I suspect we would see a rapid decline in the predominance of the fee-for-service model, making way for real innovation and choice in service plans and funding. And the payment system would not be set by fiat; it would remain responsive to treatment breakthroughs and changes in consumer demand.

Many consumers would be able to make many decisions, unaided, in such a system. But we’d also probably see the rise of health-care agents—paid by, and responsible to, the consumer—to help choose providers and to act as advocates during long and complex care episodes.

How else might the system change? Technological innovation—which is now almost completely insensitive to costs, and which often takes the form of slightly improved treatments for much higher prices—would begin to concern itself with value, not just quality. Many innovations might drive prices down, not up. Convenient, lower-cost specialty centers might proliferate. The need for unpaid indigent care would go away—everyone, recall, would have both catastrophic insurance and an HSA, funded entirely by the government when necessary—and with it much of the rationale for protecting hospitals against competition.

Of course, none of this would happen overnight. And the government has an essential role to play in arming consumers with good information. Congress should require maximum transparency on services, prices, and results (and some elements of the Obama administration’s reform plan would move the industry in this direction). We should establish a more comprehensive system of quality inspection of all providers, and publish all the findings. Safety and efficacy must remain the cornerstone of government licensing, but regulatory bias should favor competition and prevent incumbents from using red tape to forestall competition.

Moving from the system we’ve got now to the one I’ve outlined would be complicated, and would take a long time. Most of us have been paying into an insurance system for years, expecting that our future health-care bills would be paid; we haven’t been saving separately for these expenses. It would take a full generation to completely migrate from relying on Medicare to saving for late-life care; from Medicaid for the disadvantaged to catastrophic insurance and subsidized savings accounts. Such a transition would require the slow reduction of Medicare taxes, premiums, and benefit levels for those not yet eligible, and a corresponding slow ramp-up in HSAs. And the national catastrophic plan would need to start with much broader coverage and higher premiums than the ultimate goal, in order to fund the care needed today by our aging population. Nonetheless, the benefits of a consumer-centered approach—lower costs for better service—should have early and large dividends for all of us throughout the period of transition. The earlier we start, the less a transition will ultimately cost.

Many experts oppose the whole concept of a greater role for consumers in our health-care system. They worry that patients lack the necessary knowledge to be good consumers, that unscrupulous providers will take advantage of them, that they will overspend on low-benefit treatments and under-spend on high-benefit preventive care, and that such waste will leave some patients unable to afford highly beneficial care.

They are right, of course. Whatever replaces our current system will be flawed; that’s the nature of health care and, indeed, of all human institutions. Our current system features all of these problems already—as does the one the Obama reforms would create. Because health care is so complex and because each individual has a unique health profile, no system can be perfect.

I believe my proposed approach passes two meaningful tests. It will do a better job than our current system of controlling prices, allocating resources, expanding access, and safeguarding quality. And it will do a better job than a more government-driven approach of harnessing medicine’s dynamism to develop and spread the new knowledge, technologies, and techniques that improve the quality of life. We won’t be perfect consumers, but we’re more likely than large bureaucracies to encourage better medicine over time.

All of the health-care interest groups—hospitals, insurance companies, professional groups, pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, even advocates for the poor—have a major stake in the current system. Overturning it would favor only the 300 million of us who use the system and—whether we realize it or not—pay for it. Until we start asking the type of questions my father’s death inspired me to ask, until we demand the same price and quality accountability in health care that we demand in everything else, each new health-care reform will cost us more and serve us less.

$636,687.75
Ten days after my father’s death, the hospital sent my mother a copy of the bill for his five-week stay: $636,687.75. He was charged $11,590 per night for his ICU room; $7,407 per night for a semiprivate room before he was moved to the ICU; $145,432 for drugs; $41,696 for respiratory services. Even the most casual effort to compare these prices to marginal costs or to the costs of off-the-shelf components demonstrates the absurdity of these numbers, but why should my mother care? Her share of the bill was only $992; the balance, undoubtedly at some huge discount, was paid by Medicare.

Wasn’t this an extraordinary benefit, a windfall return on American citizenship? Or at least some small relief for a distraught widow?

Not really. You can feel grateful for the protection currently offered by Medicare (or by private insurance) only if you don’t realize how much you truly spend to fund this system over your lifetime, and if you believe you’re getting good care in return.

Would our health-care system be so outrageously expensive if each American family directly spent even half of that $1.77 million that it will contribute to health insurance and Medicare over a lifetime, instead of entrusting care to massive government and private intermediaries? Like its predecessors, the Obama administration treats additional government funding as a solution to unaffordable health care, rather than its cause. The current reform will likely expand our government’s already massive role in health-care decision-making—all just to continue the illusion that someone else is paying for our care.

But let’s forget about money for a moment. Aren’t we also likely to get worse care in any system where providers are more accountable to insurance companies and government agencies than to us?

Before we further remove ourselves as direct consumers of health care—with all of our beneficial influence on quality, service, and price—let me ask you to consider one more question. Imagine my father’s hospital had to present the bill for his “care” not to a government bureaucracy, but to my grieving mother. Do you really believe that the hospital—forced to face the victim of its poor-quality service, forced to collect the bill from the real customer—wouldn’t have figured out how to make its doctors wash their hands?

The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Americorps

2009-08-25T14:46:00.002-05:00

Okay, so I haven't really given this thing a shot, but I think I already hate the Americorps program.

For some reason it's just not what I thought it would be. It's all about testing and getting kids up to the right testing level. You work with them for 15 minutes, then send them back on their way. It doesn't sound like fun. In fact, it sounds like a lot of really hard work to juggle it all with my full time job.

I should have never taken it. I knew I would over-stretch myself. And now the question is, assume I'm right and quit now or wait to see if it drives me crazy and quit then - after I've hurt things.

And sure there's the chance I'll love it. I think there's a greater chance it'll negatively impact my full time job performance, though.

And I've only been through training and it's already giving me panic attacks.

I don't know, I just don't know.

Not wanting to disappoint people isn't a very good reason for doing something, though, is it?

What? What!?

2009-08-25T09:34:00.004-05:00

So I just read an article, "Obama renominates Bernanke as Fed chief."

The first quote they have from Obama is this: "Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom; with bold action and outside-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic freefall," Obama said.

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's been Fed chief for how long? And didn't see the economic freefall coming? Or at least didn't do anything to stop it. Then he did minimal stuff so we're not in freefall anymore, but we're still losing footing. And Obama - who based his campaign on change - wants to reappoint him? Why, Obama? Why? You were supposed to be different. Stop sucking! And quit using buzz words, it's irritating. Although at least that's consistent with your campaign. Sheesh. Coffee must be too bitter this morning.

Complementary articles:

Extended renomination

Bernanke's pledge

Mmm smoke and mirrors - don't watch this hand that's raising the deficit, watch this one that's patting Bernanke on the back!

News tip

2009-08-24T12:37:00.002-05:00

This printed out email was on my desk this morning:

To The Editor:

This is a short story about Little Duck. I live in Shoreview on City D and Lexington. Right east of the building are two small ponds surrounded by brush, grass and trees. It is a great nesting place for ducks. This year we even had a goose and her two young. One day I was walking my dog when I noticed a little duck swimming all by himself. He was so little and we decided to keep an eye on him. Quite a few mallards and young came and went and we were hoping they would take him with them. Alas he was left time after time. Some big ducks came and went and all chased him away. The little kids, and big kids come to see Little Duck to see if he was still all alone. We called the Rehab place to see if they could help him and tried to find a duck hunting group that would rescue Little Duck. We are to see if we can catch him and they will take him but we have no means to do so. We hope maybe someone will see this and help out. We are afraid when winter comes he will still be here and that would be a sad ending for so brave a little duck.

Mmm community journalism.

I love you Carrie Taylor

2009-08-23T23:43:00.001-05:00

"Don't ask yourself what the world needs, ask yourself what makes you come alive. Then go out and do that, because the world needs people who have come alive." -Harold Whitman

Yup, my best friend did that. It's something I hope to work on discovering. It's harder than it seems though. What makes me come alive?

This poem has been stuck in my head for six years or so

2009-08-21T01:41:00.001-05:00

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-William Butler Yeats

I'm just not going to try to have a good attitude about August

2009-08-18T10:04:00.002-05:00

It is the month of hell, I've decided. Typically. Just not my month. If I could hibernate in August, I just might. Green Day should change their song. September is way better than August.

Anyway.

Still hella busy. I have two more training days this week for Americorps, then I start in the school next week with meet and greets, and such. I covered a sentencing hearing yesterday for a murder trial. It was tough stuff. The family of the victims got up and read victim statements. Most of the people in the ... house, audience, whatever you call it in a court room (probably should look that up for the article)... were family members so there was lots of crying. The guy got 70 some years served consecutively - essentially a life sentence.

Charlie and I moved my stuff from the Minneapolis house to my parents' on Sunday. We picked up the the truck from UHaul around 1 and had it back just before 5. We packed up and moved everything I owned in less than 4 hours.

So I'm out of my lease, I'm back in with the folks. I don't want to think about moving again until next spring and after two failed experiences in a row in Minneapolis, I'm wary about moving back. I don't want to move in to Minneapolis a third time to have to move back in with the folks. So I'll take my time and be sure of the situation. At least I got a lesson out of it all.

Plus, I'm going to save a lot of money and think I might use my Americorps money to go to France in the spring. April or May, when it's all pretty like. I'm sick of saying "someday" so I'm gonna plan to just fucking do it all ready. I mean, I have spent six or so years of my life studying the darn country, it seems a waste not to visit it and appreciate it. And as excited as I'll be for Paris (and I call it going to Paris instead of France for whatever reason) I'm mostly excited for the south of France. Visiting Paris seems tangible, visiting the south of France feels like heaven.

What else? Charlie and I are both hella busy this month, so we've been scheduling time to see each other - as in let's get our calendars and mark down times to spend together. It's been wonderful, actually. It makes each time we get together seem so special. This weekend we spent the nights together.

We both worked Saturday during the day - I on newspaper stuff, him on music and cleaning (and surprise shopping for me. He picked up a bottle of whiskey for me because I noted how it helped calm me down. He also got a new hookah, which also helps me chill. He was going to buy the original Star Wars trilogy so we could watch that too, since he knows I like it so much, but couldn't find it at the stores he checked. He's sweet.) Sunday he picked up all the heavy stuff, carried it out of my bedroom, down the stairs and out to a moving van so I could be all moved out in half a day, then had dinner with my parents. Is it apparent this guy got major points this weekend?

And that's kind of my life. Stressing about about juggling work with extra things like the Fringe and Americorps. Now I'm moved so that's one less thing to worry about. It's actually a huge relief to be back with my folks because I hated my roommates so much. And there's less money worries. I might get myself a facial. Or a massage. Hmm. I'm going to look at that now, because that sounds happy.

Hooray for lack of cohesion. I blame you, August.

The really important protest signs

2009-08-17T11:50:00.002-05:00

Check out the guy in the middle. Yes sir, you are right.

And this guy is all about the issues.

And then the obvious. Angry Mob.

Knowledge is power!

2009-08-14T00:32:00.004-05:00

I've been getting down on myself about my anxiety lately. I'm putting this on here because I am a checker and I will reread this blog frequently enough for this to help. It's good to be reminded what I'm dealing with.

So, here's a little glimpse into my crazy:

What is obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)?

OCD is a real illness that can be treated with medicine and therapy. When you have OCD, you have recurring, upsetting thoughts (called obsessions). You repeat doing the same thing, over and over again (called compulsions) to make the thoughts go away. You feel like you can't control or stop these thoughts or actions. (I say the alphabet. Strange, yes. New, also. I used to count to ten a lot, now I say the alphabet to myself until I've calmed down. Other things I used to do: Verbal ticks including random sounds. I still sometimes do these and am usually totally unaware I'm doing it until after a little while. My roommate used to joke about my sound effects I'd add to life. Especially while driving. Now I'm a calmer driver. Physical ones would include rubbing my thumb against my forefinger, hitting my wrist against my hipbone, or, while lying down, lifting my leg and then letting it fall against the ground. All of them until I feel 'okay' again.)

The obsessions, or upsetting thoughts, can include things like a fear of germs, a fear of being hurt, a fear of hurting others, and disturbing religious or sexual thoughts. The compulsions, or actions you repeat to make the thoughts go away, can be things like counting, cleaning, hand washing, and checking on things. While these actions provide only short-lived relief, not doing them only increases anxiety.

Many people who have OCD know that their actions often don't make sense. They may try to hide their problem from family and friends, (not anymore, suckas!) and may have trouble keeping a job because of their actions. Without treatment, obsessions and the need to perform rituals can take over a person's life. OCD is an anxiety disorder that can be life-long. A person with OCD can also recover and then get the illness again, or relapse. This illness affects women and men in equal numbers. Most often, OCD begins during the teenage years or early childhood, (yup, adolescence) although it can start in an adult.

The exact cause of OCD is not known. Researchers are looking at differences in brain activity among people who have OCD and persons who do not, for clues about its cause. OCD is not caused by family problems. Nor is it caused by something in a person's childhood, such as an unusual focus on cleanliness, or a belief that certain thoughts are dangerous or wrong. It's important to know that when a person has OCD, it's not her or his fault.

What are the symptoms of OCD?

OCD shouldn't be confused with sometimes acting "compulsive." Individuals who act this way expect a lot from themselves, are very organized in their work and play, and are sometimes called "perfectionists." This type of "compulsiveness" often has value in a person's life. It can help a person feel good about themselves and help them be a success on the job. It differs greatly from OCD, which is an illness that can have a devastating effect on a person's life.

Symptoms of OCD include:

Having upsetting thoughts or images enter your mind again and again.
Feeling like you can't stop these thoughts or images, even though you want to.
Having a hard time stopping yourself from doing things again and again, like counting, checking on things, washing your hands, cleaning, re-arranging objects, doing things until it feels "right," or collecting useless objects (I've actually forced myself to stop this one. I throw more stuff out now and have worked on addressing this as a behavior and not a need. I still have my box of treasures though - cards, notes, pictures, things like that. It's a process).
Worrying a lot about terrible things that could happen if you're not careful.
Having unwanted urges to hurt someone, but knowing you never would.

People with OCD sometimes abuse alcohol and drugs and can have other illnesses, such as depression, eating disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or other anxiety disorders. When a person also has other illnesses, OCD is often harder to diagnose and treat.

How is OCD treated?

OCD is a type of anxiety disorder, the most common of all the mental disorders. Many people misunderstand these disorders and think people should be able to overcome the symptoms by sheer willpower; however, the symptoms can't be willed or wished away. There are treatments, developed through research, that work well for these disorders.

Treatment with psychotherapy includes cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and behavioral therapy. In CBT, the goal is to change how a person thinks about, and then reacts to, a situation that makes them anxious or fearful. In behavioral therapy, the focus is on changing how a person reacts to a situation. CBT or behavioral therapy most often lasts for 12 weeks. It can be group or individual therapy. A special type of behavior therapy, called exposure and response prevention, is often used with OCD. With this approach, a person is exposed to whatever triggers the obsessive thoughts. Then, the person is taught ways to avoid doing the compulsive rituals, and how to deal with the anxiety. Some studies have shown that the benefits of CBT or behavioral therapy last longer than do those of medications for people with OCD.

What can I do to help myself if I have OCD?

Many people find it helps to join a support group because they can share their problems and successes with others who are going through the same thing. While it doesn't take the place of mental health care, talking with trusted friends or a member of your faith community can also be very helpful. Family members can play an important role in a person's treatment by offering support. Learning how to manage stress will help you to stay calm and focused. Research suggests that aerobic exercise (like jogging, bicycling and swimming) may be of value as well. Other studies have found that caffeine, illegal drugs, and some over-the-counter cold medicines can worsen the symptoms of these disorders. Check with your doctor or pharmacist before taking any over-the-counter medicines.

Two therapy types listed for this anxiety disorder (and others):

Literary Therapy

Literary therapy incorporates books, articles, and other research materials into the process of healing. By gathering information about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, one can acquire in-depth knowledge about his or her problems. This knowledge provides the essential tools for controlling and resolving ones issues. There is an extensive amount of information available from a wide range of perspectives. Many books can be checked out from a local library, and most internet information is presented free of charge.

Talk Therapy

Talk therapy involves the idea of healing through communication. Talking to friends, family members, or a therapist can help one to find support for dealing with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. A therapist can help provide an appropriate panic attack treatment. Communication comes naturally to humans, and the simple act of discussing one’s problems can be extremely helpful in the healing process.

----------

Okay, me again. And like everything, these disorders aren't all or nothing. They exist on gradient scales. My doctor and I determined I have relatively mild OCD and a pretty strong panic disorder. She suggested I try medication to get my bearings (when I met with her I wasn't doing too hot. I've made significant progress since then. Example? I am now able to leave a room, confident that, in doing so, I will not die), then try to find alternatives. We talked about some behavior/cognitive therapy ideas.

I never got any further treatment because I couldn't afford it, but I feel like I understand the point of the treatment well enough to work on the behaviors and thoughts myself. Sometimes it's hard isolating the erratic thought process, but I'm getting better at it. I'm also getting better at reminding myself that I don't "need" to do these things, I choose to because they make me feel better. I make a value judgement from there as to whether or not I will continue with the behavior. Mostly it's just a judgement as to whether I'm capable of continuing on without it.

What's been worrying me lately is I've been waking up mid panic attack. I don't remember my dreams, so there's no real way to figure out what's triggering the attacks. I can only assume my daily schedule is too rigorous and I need more time to spend alone, chilling out. Oh, and alternating the alphabet in French and English turns out be a nice blend of helpful but still keeping things interesting.

And then sometimes I think, "Man I'd make one hell of a Faulkner character!" He makes crazy romantic.

In a rut

2009-08-13T20:46:00.001-05:00

I don't like the books I have to read right now. They're all great and remaining on my list, but none of them is pulling me in. So, as part of that never-ending quest for that elusive and ever-morphing good book, book suggestions are appreciated. And if you're feeling especially helpful annotated book suggestions are even more appreciated. I'm feeling contemporary fiction but wouldn't turn my nose up at a non fiction book.

What do you say, read anything good lately?

August.

2009-08-10T22:30:00.002-05:00

1-8 Fringe Festival is life.

9 Surprise Sweet Sixteen for the little sis

10 Kick off the work week, government meetings dress shopping for cousin's wedding

11-13 Minnesota Reading Corps training

11 Sepia Tone and CVS Trio: one venue! The planets are aligning.

14 Finish out the work week in mad haste, lunch with Kyle

15 Ben Mills Mystery Project

17 Spending the afternoon in court for a story for my job

22 Another training and a friends CD release

23 Cousin's due date

24 Play date with friend Lyndsay. She's a Mary Kay rep. now. Anyone want a free facial?

27 Start of the Great MN Get-Together

28-30 Camping with my fella

Not to mention adding another 20 hours to my 40 hour work week at the end of the month and fitting eight days of gym-time in this month. Quality time with the family, with friends, with boyfriend and with self may be sacrificed - in reverse that order. Mostly because I'm selfish and will go crazy if I sacrifice all of my me time. I know this because of the Fringe.

If anyone wants to get together this month, scheduling is appreciated.

Panic attack post accurately placed

2009-08-10T15:14:00.001-05:00

I've discovered I really don't like August. I'm counting down until this month is over. I may hibernate.

Um? Okay.

2009-08-04T14:44:00.001-05:00

Fans urged to drink whisky to ward off swine flu

Mon Aug 3, 2009 1:24pm EDT

Email | Print |

| Reprints | Single Page

1 of 1Full Size

By Gennady Fyodorov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soccer fans have been told to drink whisky on their trip to Wales for next month's World Cup qualifier to ward off the H1N1 swine fluvirus, the head of the country's supporter association (VOB) said Monday.

"We urge our fans to drink a lot of Welsh whisky as a form of disinfection," VOB head Alexander Shprygin told Reuters.

"That should cure all symptoms of the disease."

Russia's Health Ministry has issued a public warning against traveling to Britain because of the spread of the H1N1 virus but Shprygin said he expected at least several hundred fans would go to Wales for the September 9 qualifier in Cardiff.

"Health officials say this virus is very dangerous but being a fan myself I can tell you that for a real fan nothing is more important than the well-being of the team," said Shprygin, who also sits on the executive board of the Russian FA.

"Russian fans don't fear anything or anybody so this virus will not stand in our way of supporting our team."

The Russian FA also said health issues should not prevent fans from traveling.

"We don't want our team to be without any support for such an important match so we urge our fans to go to Wales despite the health warning," a spokesman said.

Germany lead European Group Four with 16 points from six games, one ahead of Russia, with Wales in fourth place on nine points from seven matches.

Too much CNN

2009-08-03T01:01:00.002-05:00

Dear Cable News Networks,

Enough with the H1N1 stuff already. Before we hype this any further can we please remember: SARS, the Avian Flu, Anthrax, Mad Cow, the West Nile Virus - and any other number of diseases we terrified Americans into thinking would be a massive pandemic, then just seemed to blow over? Thank you.

Personally, CNN, I don't think I've heard enough about the conspiracy theories concerning Michael Jackson's death, so if you could pick up the coverage on that subject, I would appreciate it. My guess is it was really an H1N1/Mad Cow/Anthrax combination.

Thank you for your tireless dedication to getting the real news out there.

Sincerely,

A very fond viewer

A little rant about healthcare

2009-07-31T10:43:00.002-05:00

Read these two articles. I don't think people realize exactly how this will affect them. We hear "health care reform" and think, "Oh yeah, our health care system sucks, it does need reform." And that's true, it does, but is it the kind of reform we're going to end up getting, or will it hurt us even worse. Nearly 1/3 of the nation is unemployed. The fiscal year ends in September and China is getting worried about us paying our bills - if they pull out their financial backing we're screwed and left very poor as a country because our deficit is so high.

And the hype about H1N1 really is hype. Hopefully it won't scare Americans into accepting a health care plan that doesn't work for them. I read on the WHO site recently a statement from the director saying that of course they're concerned because the flu kills people, but it's not that big a deal. I like to think the director of the World Health Organization knows what he's talking about. As does the Mayo clinic. And Obama's doctor. And the countless other doctors who have spoken out against the health care plan.

And the odds of congress people actually reading the bill they're supposed to vote on is very slim because they have campaigning to do. Not to mention the high amounts of bureaucracy that goes on - image, alliances, back scratching and all that. And a decent amount of time to read the bill before congress votes on it is not something that seems to be very high on Pelosi's list (and she was confused when Slate told her people don't trust her).

So please, please write your congress person and tell them what you think because you're crazy if you think this nonsense isn't going to directly affect you and you should have some kind of say in it. The more people who speak up about this issue, the more likely we can affect something. I mean, grassroots politics can be very successful. So get the word out, take a stake in our political system, don't just sit back and wait for someone else to fix it - because that's how we get trillions of dollars in national debt, a war we really don't like and (eventually) a health care system we have to pay a lot of money into and, also, really don't like.

And it saves your congress person some campaigning time if you contact them about issues! Hooray, it works out for everyone!

And now I'm done ranting.

Familiar, anyone?

2009-07-30T13:42:00.001-05:00

An article from the Onion:

So This Is A Panic Attack, Eh?

BY T. ERIC MAYHEW
JULY 30, 2009 | ISSUE 45•31

Hmmm. Something seems to be happening. I'm definitely noticing a quickening of the breath, a pounding of the heart, racing thoughts, and I believe…yes, the feeling of an elephant sitting on my chest. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is one of those elusive "panic attacks" I've heard so much about.

Huh. I really didn't expect it to be quite so utterly terrifying. Weird.

It's almost as if the more I think about how panicked I am, the more panicked I get. Like some kind of, what do you call those? Vicious circles. Like I'm spiraling around in an state of utter helplessness, unable to function on even the most basic level. Yeah, that about sums it up. I'd like to try to calm myself down by drinking a glass of water, but—it's really the darnedest thing—the kitchen sink feels 400 miles away, and the thought of actually getting up to go over there feels about as impossible as flapping my arms and flying to the moon. Man, these panic attack things really are as petrifying as they look in the movies!

Now, granted, I'm new at this, but I can't help but notice that there doesn't appear to be any concrete reason for me to feel so terrible. How odd. I guess I assumed that such a sudden, paralyzing wave of unbearable dread like this would follow an actual occurrence of some sort. Like, say, my girlfriend leaving me. Oh my God, what if my girlfriend leaves me? Perhaps if I think about it for a moment longer, I can come up with all kinds of specific reasons to feel this terrible.

Oh, yep, here they come. Here they come. Loneliness, getting fired from job, alienation by social circle, blood clots in legs, my dog hates me, plane crashes, cancer. Gee, these panic attacks are powerful stuff, aren't they? They weren't kidding!

I can't quite put my finger on the total sensation of unavoidable doom that's coursing through my body like a tidal wave. But if I had to describe it, I'd probably go with "all-consuming." Yeah, definitely all-consuming. Everything in my field of vision seems to contain malevolent, menacing forces bent on my destruction, which is a bit of a surprise considering they're just inanimate objects in my living room. Lamps, end tables, rugs…who knew they could be so horrifying, in a nonspecific sort of way?

Aaaand, now I'm sweating. Oh, my stars and garters, isn't this wild?

I wonder what's going to happen next. If I weren't stuck in the fetal position, I'd be on the edge of my seat with anticipation. Going by what my brain has been telling me repeatedly for the past 20 minutes, I'd predict that I'm about to die. Probably a heart attack. Or stroke. Or brain aneurysm, diabetic shock, spontaneous lung collapse, or…can you panic to death? My, my, what amazingly rapid thoughts I'm having.

Maybe if I repeat some simple phrase to myself over and over maniacally, that'll calm me down. It's worth a try, right? You're fine. You're fine. You're fine. Nope. Turns out the only sounds I am capable of making right now are strangled gurgling noises and quiet sobs.

Oh, wait. I seem to be calming down a bit. Yes. Things are coming back into focus and I can feel my heart slowing. All right. Settle down. Breathe slow. Someday I'm going to die. Oh, God, it's back. Here we go.

I had better call 9-1-1 and have an ambulance come pick me up. Then they can take me to the hospital and complete a barrage of tests that will all come back negative, and the doctors will tell me there's nothing wrong with me physically, and they'll chastise me for wasting their time and valuable hospital resources, and the bill will be outrageously high, and I won't be able to pay it, and I'll be right back here in this whirling vortex of unrelenting horror and fear.

Oh, my goodness gracious. How long do these things last?

Perhaps hiding under the covers in my bed will help. Let's see now…no, nope. Still just as panicky under there as I was curled up in a ball on the couch. This panic attack sure is persistent. Looks like it's going to follow me wherever I go.

In fact, come to think of it, nothing can help me at all. Alternately hugging the couch pillows and throwing them across the room doesn't seem to have any effect. Sobbing with big fat tears running down my face isn't doing any good either. The worse things get, the more I panic, and the more I panic, the worse things get.

Who knew that, all this time, when people were talking about a panic attack, what they really meant was a nonstop rocket-sled ride to hell itself, where your soul gets sucked through a straw by demons?

Well, at least I finally understand what all the hubbub is about.

Why so much money for North Dakota

2009-07-30T10:34:00.002-05:00

Here's the link to the interactive web tool.

Making up for the lack of posts, or "Boo hype"

2009-07-24T17:40:00.003-05:00

NOT WRITTEN BY ME, TAKEN FROM SLATE.COM

Why I Didn't Trust Walter CronkiteReason No. 1: He was not worthy.

By Jack ShaferPosted Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 6:35 PM ET

Walter CronkiteThe scores of obituaries and appreciations now being heaped upon Walter Cronkite's funeral bier almost unanimously express how much the country "trusted" him. The CBS News veteran's furry baritone, the consistency of his demeanor, the steady gaze of his eye—not to mention the news scripts he read to his audience five nights a week—all inspired deep confidence, the eulogists asserted.

Cronkite first became synonymous with trust in 1972, when the Oliver Quayle and Co. poll included his name in a list of public figures to determine a "trust index." Cronkite topped the rankings with 73 percent, which seemed impressive until you considered the skunks polled alongside him. The "average senator" scored 67 percent in the survey, and President Richard Nixon—easily the least trustworthy animal ever to walk on two legs—received 57 percent, as did Hubert Humphrey.

How did Cronkite join this popularity list in the first place? In his 2000 book, The Control Room: How Television Calls the Shots in Presidential Elections, CBS News veteran Martin Plissner writes:

In surveys done for candidates in eighteen states, Quayle included a "thermometer" question regarding the level of public trust for candidates for the Senate and governor in those states as well as most of the men running for President. For reasons not entirely clear, Quayle added Cronkite's name to the list.

It's anybody's guess how high Cronkite's competitors at NBC News (John Chancellor) and ABC News (Harry Reasoner) would have ranked had Quayle included their names in the poll.

As much as the public may have trusted Cronkite, he didn't top all surveys. In 1974, before the Cronkite-equals-trust cliché took root, the Phillips-Sindlinger organization conducted a nationwide poll to determine viewers' attitudes toward the top TV newscasters. Cronkite won the "best-known" category, but John Chancellor took the honors for "best-liked" and "most-watched" TV newsperson. Cronkite finished fourth in "best-liked," behind Harry Reasoner, who placed second, and Howard K. Smith (ABC News), who placed third.

Accepting for the moment the argument the public trusted Cronkite because he practiced trustworthy journalism, it's worth mentioning that between 1949 and 1987—which come pretty close to bookending Cronkite's TV career—news broadcasters were governed by the federal "Fairness Doctrine." The doctrine required broadcast station licensees to address controversial issues of public importance but also to allow contrasting points of view to be included in the discussion. One way around the Fairness Doctrine was to tamp down controversy, which all three networks often did. The times that Cronkite directly engaged controversy can be counted on one hand—his 1968 special, in which he called the Vietnam War a stalemate and called for negotiations, and a pair of 1972 broadcasts about the Watergate scandal, both of which are cited in his New York Times obituary.

Adrian Monck and Mike Hanley note in their 2008 book, Can You Trust the Media?, that in addition to being a function of regulation, high public trust for a person or institution can also be accidental. As consumers shifted consumption of news from newsprint to television in the 1960s, consumers shifted whom and what they trusted, too. "Quite simply, people trusted what they used, not vice versa," Monck and Hanley write.

If Cronkite were working in today's news environment, painting the news from the same palette he used when he anchored the CBS program, would viewers still invest their deep trust in him? (Assuming, of course, that the public did regard Cronkite as the nation's most trustworthy man.)

I doubt it. The news business has both expanded and fragmented in the post-Cronkite, post-Fairness Doctrine era. The news monopoly the three broadcast networks enjoyed for two decades has been shattered by the three cable news networks, all of which embrace (and thrive on) the controversy that Cronkite eschewed. The Web, which can make the cable news channels look positively Cronkitian, has only reshattered the shards.

If the nostalgia for Cronkitian news values were genuine, you'd expect PBS's soporific News Hour would be drawing huge and growing numbers of viewers. The program was, as its co-founder Robert MacNeil just testified, one that Cronkite adored. Alas, the NewsHour's Cronkite-lite approach has failed to attract much of an audience. In fact, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism informs us that the News Hour is losing numbers, not gaining them: "For the 2007-08 season, the number of different people watching each week was 5.5 million, down from the previous season's 6.1 million." According to PBS research, the viewers are migrating to cable news, a fate that trusted Walter would probably be suffering today if he were still reading from the teleprompter.

Beware of those who fetishize trust, Monck and Hanley counsel. "Trust is a shoddy yardstick. It doesn't gauge truth, it gauges what looks close to the truth: verisimilitude," they write. It's not just the naive and undereducated who end up trusting people and institutions that they shouldn't. The sophisticated and the well-schooled are vulnerable, too.

Be skeptical, news consumers, especially of the journalists you trust most. It will make you smarter and keep them honest.

I never really liked this game...

2009-07-24T14:48:00.002-05:00

Does this paragraph from random news source sound like Risk to anyone else?

However, the U.S. acted on a nonsensical theory about the world “going Communist” if the U.S. didn’t win, just as today the U.S. has an even more nonsensical theory about radical Islam conquering Muslim Asia and all of Europe, and then attacking the U.S., if Washington fails.

Feeling Political

2009-07-24T10:54:00.002-05:00

Here are links to committees my congress people sit on:

McCollum (for those of you who live in MN District 4):
House Appropriations
House Budget

Klobuchar

Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Senate Commerce Science and Transportation: Consumer affairs, insurance and automotive safety
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation: Oceans, atmosphere, fisheries and coast guard

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation: Science, technology and innovation

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation: Surface transportation and merchant marine infrastructure safety and security
Senate Environment and Public Works
Senate Judiciary: Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

Senate Judiciary: Crime and Drugs

Franken is too new for this site to have this info, and I'm just doing this quickly at work - I should probably do some work now instead of researching his committees. But relevant to community journalism, no?

Anyway.

You can look at these committees, look at the bills these committees are reviewing, and write to your representative about how you feel regarding these bills. That's how representative government works. You tell your representative how you feel and they represent you. Cool, huh?

Lame

2009-07-24T10:05:00.002-05:00

It's been awhile since I've posted, but this is going to be a lame one nevertheless. Here is the current list of gubernatorial candidates.

Democrats: Tom Bakk, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Susan Gaertner, Steve Kelley, John Marty , Ole Savior and Paul Thissen.
Republicans: Patricia Anderson, Leslie Davis, Tom Emmer, Bill Haas, David Hann, Philip Herwig, Paul Kohls and Marty Seifert.

I have to find independents, less likely for them to pop out this early though since they don't have to worry about primaries as much as the other two groups. More research on potential gub. candidates must be done.

Truth

2009-07-15T12:32:00.002-05:00

I told a friend last night that I believe very little. It's true. I don't believe or believe in many things. I'm a skeptic. I want a lot of proof and a lot of thought before I profess a belief in anything. Until then, I'm just entertaining a lot of ideas.

And I get riled up about Truths. Here's a passage from a book I'm reading that explains a portion of how I feel about Truth. It's a fable.

From Winesburg, Ohio:

"That in the beginning when the world was young there were a great many thoughts but no such thing as a truth. Man made the truths himself and each truth was a composite of a great many vague thoughts. All about in the world were the truths and they were all beautiful.

The old man had listed hundreds of the truths in his book. I will not try to tell you of all of them. There was the truth of virginity and the truth of passion, the truth of wealth and of poverty, of thrift and of profligacy, of carelessness and abandon. Hundreds and hundreds were the truths and they were all beautiful.

And then the people came along. Each as he appeared snatched up one of the truths and some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen of them.

It was the truths that made the people grotesques. The old man had quite an elaborate theory concerning the matter. It was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood.

You can see for yourself how the old man, who had spent all of his life writing and was filled with words, would write hundreds of pages concerning this matter. The subject would become so big in his mind that he himself would be in danger of becoming a grotesque. He didn't, I suppose, for the same reason that he never published the book. It was the young thing inside him that saved the old man."

So what is the young thing inside saving him? It's different for each person I would assume, as is its voice. I feel like my young thing is my sense of wonder, my commitment to empathy and understanding and my eternal skepticism. I will accept no truths.

How do we coexist with truths without becoming consumed by them? What is the young thing inside of us? Do some hide or kill theirs?

God I want to be an English teacher.

Mmm Cartoons

2009-07-13T13:50:00.000-05:00

Well, at least I'm not Jon Arbuckle.

The only thing to fear...

2009-07-13T13:03:00.000-05:00

"My heart's been driving me crazy for a long time, I can't get it to behave normally. Well, it feels like my heart. My chest gets all fluttery and it's hard to breathe, Like a mini panic attack, except all the time."
I just wrote that to Charlie and realized it was actually a blog.

I'm thinking I need to go back on my medication. And while that makes me feel a little like a failure, I know it shouldn't. I've had a hard spring into summer and I just need some time to re-evaluate my coping processes. Analyze which thoughts are or aren't rational without attaching that emotion to them. And the medicine helps me do that. I take solace in knowing that it won't be forever. It won't even be long. Just enough time to get my head wrapped around my current condition.

And to make the fear go away for awhile.

Universal Appreciation

2009-07-09T08:52:00.003-05:00

Okay, so I've had a lot of complaints about how the Universe was treating me this year. I guess it just knew what a good thing it was giving me in Charlie and had to balance everything else out. By no means is what we have perfect, but it's really excellent and highly functional, and for that I am thankful.

That being said, most of my time has been spent adventuring with Charlie lately. We had the most amazing three day weekend - kicking off with a homemade dinner with neighbor-friends and ending as we relaxed after a wonderful surprise (for both the bride and us as we found out last minute) wedding shower and trip to Charlie's folks.

In the middle there were fireworks in a park we had to ourselves, a long walk to run errands and explore a couple different stores, cracking open a six pack of beer on that walk home, champagne on the roof for 4th of July fireworks, music on a playground while the sun rose, lots of hooka, lots more walking, and countless thought-provoking conversations.

Periodically I read back through my blog; that's it's purpose for me, cataloging thoughts and memories. I came across this entry about Kyle and Joie de Vivre. And I realized that's what Charlie and I have. We walk around. We go on adventures, we talk instead of watching TV or movies, and none of it do we ever have to think about (wow, that sentence was set up weird, sorry). It just comes naturally for us to enjoy life, enjoy nature, enjoy each other.

And so now I guess I understand a little Universe, you have to balance things out a little. Just know that I appreciate you and don't need the extremes to do so. So if we could take a break from the bad things, I'd appreciate that as well. And thank you, thank you, thank you for all the good things you've given me recently.

Charlie makes me think, and I like it

2009-07-02T16:53:00.002-05:00

Charlie says: (4:39:46 PM)
hmm. i just told Caitlin how, as a culture, its like we never stop watching Barney--a whole lot of oversized babies running around
Charlie says: (4:40:00 PM)
she didnt follow me at all
Charlie says: (4:40:01 PM)
whoops
Kate says: (4:41:26 PM)
Anthropologists often use art as a primary source of judging a culture. If you look at how cartoon-based (not literally but structurally) all of our media - cinema, television, even some music - has become, I think that's a huge reflection on the culture at large
Kate says: (4:42:06 PM)
Especially when you compare it to the existentialist era of the late 50's and 60's
Charlie says: (4:43:57 PM)
Oh, I so agree with you, but I'm sure that's no surprise.
Kate says: (4:45:58 PM)
:)
Kate says: (4:46:40 PM)
Then again, the era of musicals was similar when faced with national crisis (the second world war in a generation)
Kate says: (4:46:45 PM)
It's all ebb and flow
Charlie says: (4:47:25 PM)
im not sure about the flow part anymore
Kate says: (4:48:47 PM)
Great art always comes out of conflict. I have a feeling we'll see some great stuff as soon as it becomes widely apparent how bad things are. Implicitly that means a cultural shift.

*Note: Widely apparent how bad things are: I don't like that phrasing. I meant something like, "once it sinks in." I'm not 100% on how I want to phrase it, actually, but I know Charlie knows what I mean.

Civic Activism

2009-07-02T16:15:00.004-05:00

Bob Collins gave me the link to the Health Insurance Bill in front of the Senate. I'm working on getting through the document, it's long, but I'm working on it. I encourage everyone who reads this to do the same. It's a pretty big deal for the nation right now, and we have the chance to be informed citizens. How cool is that? Maybe I'm a nerd, but I think it's cool. Especially with Independence Day coming up.

In a perfect world...

2009-07-02T08:47:00.001-05:00

They both would have conceded and we'd have either Barkley or McCollum as our senator now. That's how I would have put things.

My co-workers are sassy

2009-06-30T14:29:00.002-05:00

George: Did you hear Michael Jackson died?

Denny: Is that the coach of the Vikings?

George: No he was part of the British navy, that's why he looked like he was always ready to invade France.

Denny: Oh, I thought he conducted a band or something. So does that mean they'll have a riderless horse at the funeral?

George: Yeah, I think so. I wonder why we haven't heard about any of this in the news.

Oh you guys.

Something Scary

2009-06-24T11:15:00.002-05:00

President for life? Don't we call those kings? Didn't America not want that? So, not only does the federal government own a good portion of our banks and cars, now we're trying to let him be president for life? Something about this doesn't seem right.

Some more articles (from the government's web site):

Article One

Article Two

Article Three

Personality Theory

2009-06-24T10:27:00.002-05:00

I'm obsessed. It will pass, but for now, obsessed.

I've been collecting the types of people around me and trying to type them myself.

What I've come up with:

DAD INTJ (R)

MOM ISFJ (G)

BROTHER ISFP (A)

SISTER ENFP (I)

ME INFP (I)

For those who follow personality theory, this presents an interesting dynamic and should tell you a good deal about how we all relate to each other. Isn't that crazy? They're four letters and they explain my family dynamic! Brother and dad aren't definite, but I'd bet money on those classifications.

Now some more speculation.

Best Friend ESTJ (G)

Me INFP (I)

Close male friend INFJ (I)

Close female friend INFP (I)

Cousin ENFJ (I)

Boyfriend INFP (I)

Ex-boyfriend one ESFP (A)

Ex-boyfriend two INTJ (R)

My best-friend and I are exact opposites. My boyfriend and I are exactly the same. I seem to surround myself with Idealists and try to get along with the other types, but just can't manage it. If you know what you are, let me know. I'm really interested. Link to test is in post below.

*Key: I: Introvert, E: Extrovert, N: Intuitive, S: Sensing, F: Feeling, T: Thinking, P: Perceiving, J: Judging

(I) Idealist, (G) Guardian, (A) Artisan, (R) Rational

Fathers' Day

2009-06-21T17:55:00.002-05:00

So on a slightly sad note, this is my first ever Fathers' Day not calling my grandpa, my dad's dad. I'm happy that I do get to spend time with my dad today, though. I bought him some potted plants, put them out on the deck, and the universe decided to water them for me. I think that's a good sign. After all, my grandpa always really loved planted flowers, too.

A little foray into my personal life

2009-06-17T10:27:00.003-05:00

So I've noticed my blogs have been mostly news snippets lately, and while that does offer a good deal of insight as to what and how I'm thinking that day, I feel like I should, in order to keep this a decent representation of my life, add a more personal blog.

I have been dating another INFP for a few weeks now and it's been fantastic. A little about INFP's:

INFP stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceptive and is part of the Myers-Briggs personality testing. It also fits into the Keirsey Temperment sorter and Jungian principals. The primary ... function, I don't know what to call it... is Introverted Feeling, and the secondary is Extroverted Intuition. Classified under "Idealists" as "The Healer" in the Keirsey Temperment sorter. We make up 1% of the population.

What some other folks have to say:

Healers present a calm and serene face to the world, and can seem shy, even distant around others. But inside they're anything but serene, having a capacity for personal caring rarely found in the other types. Healers care deeply about the inner life of a few special persons, or about a favorite cause in the world at large. And their great passion is to heal the conflicts that trouble individuals, or that divide groups, and thus to bring wholeness, or health, to themselves, their loved ones, and their community.

The calm and serene I'm not too sure about. Shy, for me, yes when I meet new people definitely. The last sentence I see a lot of in Charlie. I have my causes, too, that I feel strongly about (read: literacy).

Healers have a profound sense of idealism that comes from a strong personal sense of right and wrong. They conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place, full of wondrous possibilities and potential goods. In fact, to understand Healers, we must understand that their deep commitment to the positive and the good is almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. Set off from the rest of humanity by their privacy and scarcity (around one percent of the population), Healers can feel even more isolated in the purity of their idealism.

Boy, is this paragraph dead on. I'm starting to get rid of my idealism a little. I'm not too sure, it's hard to analyze yourself in these matters, I guess. For the most part I think the world is ethical and honorable, this is where Charlie gets a little more jaded - we go back and forth on these things, I'm a skeptic of this, he's doesn't believe that... but the bolded part is pretty on. We both share a "deep commitment to the positive." I remember thinking I wouldn't date this or that person because I wanted to be around someone who shared this commitment and understood the sacrifices I make. The closing sentence is also true, I find.

Also, Healers might well feel a sense of separation because of their often misunderstood childhood. Healers live a fantasy-filled childhood-they are the prince or princess of fairy tales-an attitude which, sadly, is frowned upon, or even punished, by many parents. With parents who want them to get their head out of the clouds, Healers begin to believe they are bad to be so fanciful, so dreamy, and can come to see themselves as ugly ducklings. In truth, they are quite OK just as they are, only different from most others-swans reared in a family of ducks.

Okay, I'm not sure the fantasy life was frowned upon by my parents, but I know they encouraged pragmatism (not the philosophy, just generally). And I definitely like fairy tales. A lot. I'm still drawn to them, but I do feel too fanciful when I focus on them. If you pay attention though, you'll catch my (fairly frequent) Disney and princess references. Charlie says he thinks of me now when he hears Disney references because he's picked up that I like them. My mom asked me what kind of roses I wanted under my window and I launched into this "Beauty and Beast" explanation. Not just the cartoon, I've read a couple novelized versions. Not that I want to be treated like a princess, I just like fairy tales. Okay, I think that's been explained enough. I'll have to ask Charlie how he feels on this issue.

At work, Healers are adaptable, welcome new ideas and new information, are patient with complicated situations, but impatient with routine details. Healers are keenly aware of people and their feelings, and relate well with most others. Because of their deep-seated reserve, however, they can work quite happily alone. When making decisions, Healers follow their heart not their head, which means they can make errors of fact, but seldom of feeling. They have a natural interest in scholarly activities and demonstrate, like the other Idealists, a remarkable facility with language. They have a gift for interpreting stories, as well as for creating them, and thus often write in lyric, poetic fashion. Frequently they hear a call to go forth into the world and help others, a call they seem ready to answer, even if they must sacrifice their own comfort.

I don't know how many times a day I say "It's okay, I'm adaptable." Bolded part - darn tootin'!

So yes, it's been interesting dating someone who operates like I do. We seem to really get each other, or if we don't we know how to go about understanding better. We talk a lot of ideas and aren't afraid of communicating - "I like this" "This bugs me" those kinds of things.

It's been good. I'm really happy.

Here's a link to the test. What are you?

Bob Collins is good at saying what I think

2009-06-16T09:53:00.001-05:00

...for the most part anyway. I was explaining how I felt about media hype - then I found this link to one of his blogs on his Twitter. Bam. Words for how I think. You keep doin' right by me, Bob!

Good Job, Birmingham News

2009-06-15T11:50:00.000-05:00

Funny!

2009-06-13T16:32:00.000-05:00

Do yourself a favor and read these for a good laugh.

Proven!

2009-06-10T15:25:00.002-05:00

Remember this blog entry? Fact! My friends do know when I'm going to start dating someone before I do!

Money talk

2009-06-10T15:13:00.002-05:00

Okay, so this is one of those blogs where I'm just going to post some interesting stuff I found digging around while waiting for phone calls. If you're interested in some opinions on the economy, kickin', but I understand if not. Really this one's just here for me.

The News Syndicate almost failed me

2009-06-10T11:58:00.002-05:00

I almost missed the State of Africa 2009 as written by the Africa Progress Panel. That's a big thing. Africa is an entire continent. Luckily I stumbled across a column written by Kofi Annan on the subject, but really, it could have totally missed my radar. I really need to broaden my pool of news intake. For now, that means making it a little shallower, but a shallow lake is better than a deep puddle, right?

Journalistic Skepticism

2009-06-09T09:56:00.002-05:00

Let's start off with an example from Twitter:
bcollinsmn:CSPAN's Washington Journal should rename its "Republican line" to the "Why Don't We Just Bomb the F'ers" line.
about 1 hour ago from web
bcollinsmn:CSPAN's Washington Journal should rename its "Democrat line" to the "We Love North Korea's Supreme Leader" line.
about 1 hour ago from web

Now, when I get a call in from a very Democratic woman urging me to keep telling the Truth, I'm almost as irritated by the people who call in saying I didn't talk to enough Republicans. The Truth is subjective. I don't care about the Truth. I care about the facts. You can glean whatever Truth from that you choose to, I can't control that.

I think getting angry at receiving a compliment on my writing means Tuesday is going to be another bad day. I just need a serious attitude adjustment or to get back on my meds.

The real reason I've been so bummed today:

2009-06-08T16:50:00.002-05:00

In the past few months (let's say since March) I have (in no particular order):

* had mono

* spent my birthday in the hospital

* had my insurance company decide to pull payment for a vaccine I got two years ago, so I had to pay it now

* seriously thought I was going to die from mono

* not felt safe in my neighborhood

* had frequent roommate clashes

* been dumped by having the guy just stop calling

* fallen and cut my leg up

* had my car stolen, leaving my friend and I stranded at the Mall of America

* had that p.o.s. car found, returned without my stereo - the only part of the car worth salvaging

* had to pay $300 that should have gone to student loans to get that p.o.s. car back

* panicked many times about where money for my student loans was going come

* realized I have to move back to the suburbs and live with my parents for a little while to pay things off

Earlier in the year, I had to use all of my rebate cash to buy a computer to replace the one that just stopped working and wasn't able to attend my only grandfather's funeral.

Why 2009? Why? This year isn't even half over and I already want to quit. This weekend was just the straw.

I should revisit Achebe

2009-06-08T12:40:00.002-05:00

I want to write something of consequence, but I'm at a loss for words right now.

You hear expressions like "waxing poetic" or "waxing philosophical," well I'm waning both of those right now. I don't have any good ideas right now and I don't feel the need to harbor them. I have no desire to read or educate myself on current events.

I just want to go to the gym and go for a run. I'm turning into a muscle head. I hope not.

I've been doing a lot more stream of consciousness type stuff lately. Mostly because I've been asked a lot what I'm thinking. It's weird stuff, to just follow one thought to the next. I come out sounding like a Gilmore Girl.

Example? Gilmore Girl. Luke's diner. Coffee. Coffee is good right now. What is it about a hot drink that's so soothing. Nights at the Beat. Winter board game nights. Tuesday. Karaoke, poetry, improv, Tightrope, jazz, Atlantis Quartet, Artist's Quarter, Charlie.

And thats only the stuff I was able to type out. Each of those words has a couple different thoughts tied to them. I need focus and some sort of structure.

Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.

FML Part Deux

2009-06-08T11:03:00.002-05:00

Or maybe "Part Douche" would be more accurate. They found my car. I had to pay $312 to get it back - missing the stereo. I can probably get the insurance company to pay for a new stereo since I already had to pay to get it out of the impound lot, but I just want a new car.

It's true. You do feel violated after having your car stolen. I used to love my Ho-Train and now I don't like being in it.

I cried a lot on the drive home. And in to work. And probably will continue when I leave work early this afternoon.

FML

An unexpectedly eventful day

2009-06-06T17:02:00.002-05:00

So, I got a call from Lindsey yesterday offering me a free ticket to Tony and Tina's wedding. Our friend is in it and I've been wanting to see it for a very long time. It was a great show and I'm super happy she asked me to go with her.

Unfortunately the night went too well and the Universe decided to balance things out. My car was stolen. I feel like it was a blessing in disguise, though, because now I have to buy a new car instead of putting it off. I'm thinking a Kia Rio. Not the best car in the world, but cheap and decent.

So now I have to wait 48 hours. Then I get a rental car from my insurance company. Then, hopefully, a week later they'll cut me a check that I can use as a down payment.

Woot.

Dance

2009-06-05T12:25:00.002-05:00

So about this time every year I decide I'm going to start dancing again (kudos if you know why, if not it's a lame reason that doesn't need to be shared), but I never do it. It's too expensive, I don't have the time, I can't commit to something, I'm not at the level I want to be and I don't want to take a youth dance class - all excuses. So I lock myself in my room, working on my ankles and my center of gravity and getting over my leg. Some day I'll walk out of my room the best dancer in the history of dance. We can dream, right?

Newsy-News News

2009-06-04T10:06:00.002-05:00

I am very sleepy this morning. I did not seem to make my coffee strong enough. Fortunately, I have Bob Collins and NewsCut to facilitate my laziness. Instead of digging for stories, he links me right to them. Like the one about the U.S. government accidently leaking classified nuclear sites in the states, or Slate's reaction to Obama's speech. I was going to dig around to see what I could find regarding the speech, and he's already covered a couple of my sources for me. Sweet.

Twitter is also a fun one. For example, I enjoyed this tweet from MPR:

MPRSays @SenatorColeman in response to @tomscheck's Q about gov. run: "i'm still waiting to hear from the supreme court about the senate race!"

Alright I'm off to look at the Economist, Al Jazeera (I've heard their coverage is pretty basic which is disappointing), and the Jakarta Post (Indonesia has one of, if not, the largest populations of Muslims in the world). Let me know if you find any other good ones.

"I've been hearing this a lot" means I probably should listen

2009-06-03T13:37:00.005-05:00

Okay, this might be cheesy and not your thing, but pray for me. I'm kind of amazed at the number of times I've had a conversation regarding the power of prayer in the past couple days and I'm taking it as a sign from the Universe that I need it.

I'm not in any serious trouble or any thing like that, I'm just having a hard time with accepting the way things are working out. I've found positive energy in the form of prayer to be a good thing, it never hurts to release a little more positive energy into the universe, right?

So here's how I pray: "Please give me the strength to accept what I'm given and help me to see and accept the path that's been laid out for me." Insert "God," "Universe," "Allah," "Jehovah," "Buddha..." whatever you like. Or even just send good vibes my way and know I'm doing the same for you.

It's all pretty basic and easy, and it doesn't hurt anyone ... unless you're Kalley but that's a whole different story that I'll gladly relate in person.

Just something I was thinking about.

EDIT/

Oh, and I'm not getting married anytime soon, so the Universe can stop bringing that one up, too, now, okay? Thanks Universe, I think we should be done for awhile now.

I know, I know

2009-06-02T15:52:00.003-05:00

But the editor I don't like as much decided to come to our office and play boss for the day so I have to look like I'm staying busy. I was listening to MPR on my headphones earlier and she snapped at me - thinking she was catching me goofing off or who knows what, listening to evil rap music or something.

When I responded with "Kerri Miller from this morning, she's got a really interesting guest on who's an etymologist and they're dissecting language ..." she responded with "Oh, so you're listening to something that's already been recorded."

Yes. Yes I am, and as I explained to her I don't like to stream them if I can help it because it costs MPR money. And it is extremely relevant to my job. There's not a whole lot I CAN do while I'm waiting for people to return my phone calls. This is at least better than solitaire or, you know, gossiping about my children, but whatever. It's four o'clock I only have to put with her for another hour.

And I feel super bad for the poor intern who she's trying to educate in "PC language." Gag me.

To use the threat I learned recently from my cousin (who works for a church): Oh you BET I'll pray for her! *menacing look*