Life, the Universe, and Laundry... and Health Insurance

Sadly, I almost forgot I had a blogspot. It is quite good for ranting and just shaking my head at things.

There's been a lot happening that I haven't commented on, namely because I've been busy and, as I just said, I almost forgot about this. The president that was instated in January, the policies that have some countries that have people that would love to see us all dead celebrating, and of course, this health bit.

Health insurance is becoming a major issue. Some want it "fixed." Others want the federal goverment to create centralized health care.

Um, folks? Health insurance and the like is really a state issue. STATE. The federal goverment is in charge of Medicare--which is for those that are disabled or senior citizens--and, if I remember correctly, Tricare, which is military health care.

Now, each state--Maine, Mississippi, Delaware, California, Texas, and all the others that make up the fifty--have different standards and taxes for health insurances. Some have deals with insurance companies to provide a cheaper health insurance for families, others cover all children up until age(s) 18/19. Then there are states that have minimal health insurance coverage.

So... instead of complaining about more taxes going to the federal government, seeing as the state that I live in has better health care than others I've heard about and I pay for it... why doesn't the goverment just set standards that each state has to follow. No need to make the budget go even more insane, no need to try to have fun making new departments on the federal level... just make some changes. Health care is already the responsiblity of the state. Just give them some standards to live up to.

Oh, and if you're thinking "the goverment runs Tricare and Medicare, why not let them centralize everything?" I don't fancy having to wait at every single hospital for "first come, first serve" even if I make an appointment. I pay extra money for my health insurance, and honestly, I think it's worth the investment. There's no point in whining to the goverment, in my opinion, over something that's really not broken.

And if you want things like that, and they don't get passed... move up to Canada, over to Europe, somewhere that already fits your desires. I think things would be much better all around that way.

Atheism

All right, let me state a few things here before I get tackled. One: I'm a Catholic (boo, hiss, yeah, I know). Two: I live in a... I'd say semi-liberal city. Three: I live near an extremely liberal area.

Now to explain the Catholic bit: I've taught catechism, I've learned it my entire life, and I only recently stopped attending mass because I have to work on Sundays. Weekend job at a hospital--I think God will forgive me if I'm helping save lives, don't you?

I say all of this to explain a view here: We, as Christians--because yes, Catholics ARE Christians!-- are acting horribly. And the thing is, most of us don't know we're doing it. Christians, I believe, lead by example. We live the life we speak and hope for. In the book of James it even states this: be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. Bearing this in mind...

I have a few atheist friends--yes, friends. I don't use the term lightly, either. Discrimination on a scale just as great as racism has been launched on these people.

I didn't believe it at first either. So I conducted an experiment with a friend, in a local cafe. We were talking--not loudly either--at a cafe in the area. In our private conversation, I said, and I quote, "I guess. Religion is important to folks after all."

My associate, knowing what I was doing, said back, "Well, not everyone is an atheist like you."

That did it. An older woman stood up and came to our table and began to preach at me. I remained silent, of course, allowing her to preach. Then she said "Do you believe?"

Well, continuing in my role, I replied back with rational things to all of the quotes she had thrown at me. Mind you, many of those same quotes I could recite from the age of six. Bible studying was heavily enforced at home, and it's most likely one of the reasons I still believe today.

However... these people made me angry. God made all people, and we all have free will. It is our place to judge others. Here's a proverb for those who would like to preach at anyone: notSee the man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

People have the nerve to scoff and insult atheists, among many others, and yet they are acting just as horribly in their actions. Those who do this are being hypocrites.

We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a country of equal rights. And we must live in unity--it's in psalms, if you want to rely on your faith. Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.

I can't stress this enough. You claim you're Christians? Then prove it and act accordingly. Preaching and shouting and raving does nothing. And if they don't accept your message, then let it be. You will show in your example. You have no right to judge them. Stop treating people who don't share your creed as if they are your inferior!

By the way, the bit about being nice to others and not yelling or demanding? And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
The book of Ephesians.

Accepting each other, in all our differences and beliefs, isn't just common sense or being "politically correct." That's in our faith. So act it.

Confusion

Here we go yet again with politics and things associated with it. I'm talking about this article.

What is it with people? There are other things to concern yourself with. Some folks, as shown here protest one thing. Then there are those who protest another thing in different ways.

Personally? I wish more folks in this country would focus on more things that matter here. Like helping the homeless or something. Getting them off the streets would make things nicer. Or getting crime reduced... or fixing education standards.

Ah, yes, education. I recently read a book about the public school system. Being in private school myself until college--and mind you, I was on scholarship and my single mother worked three (yes THREE) jobs to put us (my siblings as well) in private school--I didn't realize how different the education systems for the two groups were.

In this book (I put it on a link via Amazon since I didn't want the title to offend anyone), it had different stories from parents and teachers with things involving the school system. Some stories surprised me and made me want to beat the teachers, others had me shaking my head at the parents.

Now, books are an odd thing. You protest books, you're labeled a book-burner and things of that sort. However, sometimes, that's exactly what you are. It's great you're involved with your child. Now let's make sure you're not hovering over everything. Should you know what's going on in schools? Yes. But will you agree with everything? No.

My case in point is if you believe in Creationism, you'll protest Evolution being taught in your child's school, even if it's public. Just like you protest that, some people protest certain books. I don't know about each individual student, but I know most children are capable of a lot more than what is being allowed them.

It's just... there are so many other things to worry about, and all people care about is who becomes President and who says what and this celebrity....

And yes, because if I asked about something in the "gossip" column in the news, more people would talk about that then if I mention the fact that thousands of Americans are in poverty. Yes, poverty!

Are we really so shallow, that we'll put gossip in front of education and people's well-being?

I hope not.

Oil

Well, reading the lovely news brought this topic up. From this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7549044.stm

A serious oil supply crisis is looming, which could push prices above $200 a barrel, a think tank has warned.
A "supply crunch" will affect the world market within the next five to 10 years, the Chatham House report said.
While there is plenty of oil in the ground, companies and governments were failing to invest enough to ensure production, it added.
Only a collapse in demand can stave off the looming crisis, report author Professor Paul Stevens said.
"In reality, the only possibility of avoiding such a crunch appears to be if a major recession reduces demand - and even then such an outcome may only postpone the problem," he said in The Coming Oil Supply Crunch.

I'm glad people are concerned about oil and all of that, I really am. It just gets irritating reading about it constantly. So fine, the oil crisis.

The citizens of the United States love cars. Love them. I read in a book before, though, that oil wasn't always used as fuel. Unfortunately, I don't remember what was used. I do know some people wanted alcohol to be used as a fuel, but I'm pretty sure that was not what was used.

But my point is, if we didn't always use oil, it shouldn't be too difficult to get off of using it. I'm lucky enough to live in a city with a good public transportation system--I own no car. But there are many who don't have that convenience.

Look, I don't have all the answers. I do know that continuously saying "Oil is finite, it's running out, oh no," won't solve anything. A man in Texas is trying to build the world's biggest wind plant. The Three Gorges Dam, in China, is the largest hydro-electric plant in the world, and there are plans in California to make the world's largest solar energy project. The majority of France's energy comes from nuclear power plants. I won't even go into all the ways available now to "go green" since most of these things are expensive anyway.

And don't preach to me that it isn't--I tried. It is. If the items aren't, readjusting the house to accommodate the new items is (i.e. trying to put in solar panels or something). I do watch my waste consumption and recycle, but I can't afford bamboo cloth or anything like that. Find a place near where I live that sells them at a reasonable cost and I guarantee people will acquire it.

Anyway, back to what I was saying: people are trying to use less oil, but there's so much red tape and misconceptions going on with the suggestions that it's much (much) easier said than done.

Cars are going to be harder to come up and fix, but I know some companies are making fuel efficient vehicles and trying to go green as well. It's just taking time. So be patient and maybe lobby for public transportation in your areas.

As for me, I've got a train to catch.

Animal Rights and Stores

Thought I'd share this part of a conversation via IM--no screen names, for privacy and all of that.

Me: I've been trying to train our puppy. He's got a few things down, but I'm a bit at my wit's end trying to teach the other things.
Them: I suggest books, or Petsmart training.
Me: Petsmart offers training?
Them: Petsmart does indeed offer classes yes
Me: I didn't know that... Chances are PETCO would as well, then, right?
Them: I don't support PETCO. They are evil
Me: How so?
Them: Do some research. they are a bad company if you are an animal rights activist.

So I did some research. My associate was correct--PETCO had indeed had some dark history involving animal rights.

And then I looked into PetSmart... and they had a bit of history involving animal rights as well! My associate was no longer online when I discovered this bit of trivia, but I can imagine hearing something similar to, "Well, it's not as bad as PETCO's" or "I didn't know that." (Mind you, I was told to do research, and I'd imagine someone who states that would do the same as well...)

Let's think about this. PETCO was evil... but it's fine to shop at PetSmart. This confuses me. How can you advocate one store and not another?

I'm not a vegatarian or PETA member or anything of the sort--I don't preach against hunting (unless the animal is endangered, but hunting them is illegal all ready) or eating meat (which is delicious and healthy if prepared correctly). However, I do believe animals shouldn't be ignored or mistreated. Taking care of other creatures is what makes us human, after all.

So what to do to shop for my pets and yet not support chains that are cruel to animals? Simple. Don't shop at them.

After all, many local pet stores would welcome you shopping there. And you can see how animals are treated at smaller stores with a bit more ease.

So no throwing bricks at stores, no throwing blood at the workers, no demanding law changes... just don't give them your money. If you know people who shop there and don't care, don't judge them--that's not your place. You made your suggestion, and hopefully made them think twice at shopping at a place that doesn't care about animals but markets to pet owners. And if enough people think about their shopping choices and don't support the stores, when questions arise as to "Why people don't shop here anymore?" they'll learn and most likely change since it'd make business sense to do so.

"But that approach would take too long! We need to save the animals NOW!"

Anything worth doing right is worth taking the time to do it correctly. If you want to channel that anger and energy, do something like help people that may need it now. Then you'll have more people that might feel how you do... and they'll have a stable enough environment to assist you.

Just don't be too fanatical in your cause. Violence doesn't really solve much, it's distasteful, and a lot of the things done are illegal. Being arrested might make you a "martyr for the cause" but is it worth it when you can't really view what's going on anymore?

As for me, I'll be traveling ten minutes out of my way to a more local shop for my pet needs. One person's business might not affect PETCO or PetSmart, but it sure as heck makes my conscience feel better.

Opinions-->Politics 2008

All right. I made the mistake of reading the opinion/letter page in the newspaper today. To be quite honest, the shear stupidity made me question if what I was reading was honestly how the person felt. I'll quote a bit from the letter that made me do a double take, interrupting it with how the person is wrong."

"...in his column 'kindergarten president' bashing Obama. The picture is very clear; it is about choosing between two men; one an old pro-war redneck that will only continue the atrocious policies of the present administration, a total failure that has taken the country to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an adventure worth billions of dollars."

1: the picture is not clear in this election. It rarely is, in any given election.
2. you just insulted a potential candidate with a slur that shows you are no better than those you would be insulting. Any chance you had of bringing me to "your side" was just lost by this. I don't like insult-slinging. It's petty and, quite frankly, a waste of time.
3. The column you are griping about is written by a man known for his sarcastic humor. I do hope you know what "sarcasm" is, sir.
4. The war in Iraq. Are you against the soldiers being in Afghanistan too? "No, they need to be there." Well, someone thought the same way about Iraq. Stop picking and choosing wars. Personally, I'd have picked a different country, but the President didn't agree. The loss of lives is saddening, and I hope the sacrifice has not been in vain and that, in our future conflicts, the citizens of Iraq will remember when we helped them despite the rest of the world and even our own fellow citizens disagreed.

"Furthermore, after eight years this government is exiting, leaving the country in a recession with high prices of fuel and a weak dollar. A total disaster."

1. The president can sometimes give a small influence of economics with taxes and the like, but does not control the economy or the federal government's budget. I suggest a talk with your congress representative.
2. Maybe if companies would stop leaving the country--outsourcing--the dollar wouldn't be as weak. Please don't dump all complaints of the economy on the president. We contribute by buying cheaper items not made in this country.
3. We import most of our fuel. The president tried for offshore drilling and the Democratic part of Congress shot it down. The environment was apparently more important to them than high fuel prices.

"The other choice is a younger, fresh face that will redirect the country to a better path that will enable the U.S. to work with the rest of the world. After eight years, we are ready for a face lift."

1. If Obama's looks are what's winning the election, I hope the next one has people who are covered by black boxes until they win/lose.
2. A better path by running out of a war (which, mind you, from when I've talked to Vietnam War veterans, they've usually agreed that more casualties came when we left) and having more troops die.
3. Obama mentioned something about a war with another country. I don't know how based in fact that rumor was, and I'll be looking heavily into it.


So this isn't a "clear picture" as the letter writer believed. Hope and change are good--they're in most of Obama's speeches.

Change of policies in a war won't be good for the soldiers. When is changing abruptly halfway in anything so big ever good?

I don't know who I'm voting for in November. But if candidate supporters are like this, I might throw away my vote on an independent for the sake of "hope" that things can "change."

But then... I sound just like a certain someone, don't I?

Information?

I recently acquired a book, detailing various things about the "history" of the internet. It reveals things about hackers and the like, and how they work.

I should specify now, that I believe information should be free, but used responsibly.

Back to my topic... so I have this new book, and I have been reading it at various points, including when things are quiet at work. The administration leave before 5pm, and my hours are later, so I'm often by myself in my work station. There are other people there, though, which leads to the problem.

The work was finished, and I was reading this book when someone noticed it. "What are you reading?"

"A computer book." I marked my page and let this person read the back.

She said, immediately after finishing, "How can you read things like this? It tells you about hackers! Are you a hacker?"

"No."

"Then why are you reading it?"

"It's interesting."

"Well, if you get arrested, don't look at me." With this she left me alone once more. But this leads to my question: having curiosity is normal. Why, when I am reading a book about a subject that interests me (computers), was I immediately labeled as not only strange, but as a criminal?

Do I advocate criminal activity?

Well, it depends on what you define as "criminal," doesn't it? What is criminal where I live may be legal where you live, and things of that nature.

At the same time, I do know for a fact that reading books with miscellaneous information in them is not illegal here. Speaking your mind and reading to have informed opinions of what goes on is not illegal here.

At least, not yet.