@ 04:17 PM CST [Link]
It seems that many hospitals in this country are ignoring a 15-year-old law designed to keep hospitals from "dumping" emergency patients -- that is, refusing to treat them -- in this day of "managed" care.
That hospitals are ignoring the law is no surprise, really. After all, they can do so, if not quite with impugnity, then with the certain knowledge that any penalty will come months and years after the fact, and knowing that most such cases will never be caught at all. After all, it's simply very difficult to monitor such violations; if the patients or staff don't complain or make an issue of it, monitoring agencies will never know. Since most such cases involve poor or noncovered people, they're not likely to complain; it's just the way things are, and they're likely used to it.
Still, some of the local hospitals caught dumping are startling, to say the least. That Michael Reese is now involved isn't the least bit surprising; Humana hospitals have had problems with such things nationwide. However, that Provident would be involved is actually shocking; it is, after all, a public hospital and HMO coverage should not matter in the least. (That said, the HMO of the woman involved is pretty much a text book case for why a patient's bill of rights of some sort is required; it's utterly absurd that they would refuse immediate coverage for a woman experiencing a miscarriage in the waiting room.) The University of Illinois Hospital, again, is a public, state-funded hospital, and should not be involved in such things. Ravenswood Hospital was shredded in the local press for the case mentioned in the Public Citizen report; the shock there is that the fine was only $40,000 for letting a person die when he was literally up against the hospital wall outside. (I dare say the extraordinarily well-deserved malpractice suit probably settled at a much higher amount.)
Pity that the country wouldn't accept moving to a single-payer system for at least emergency care. That way, hospitals wouldn't have to care whether or not someone was covered by an HMO, or whether the HMO would approve them taking care; they'd know that they'd get paid, and perhaps the treatment people receive (medical and otherwise) would improve. Unfortunately, this country is never likely to tolerate the taxes needed to support any sort of single payer health coverage, no matter how limited.
@ 03:13 PM CST [Link]
Why is it that laws that should be overturned come to light in cases where the defendant was acting sort of ... scuzzy? Apparently, in Ohio, it's illegal for people of the same sex to proposition each other. You can actually have sex with each other -- Ohio doesn't currently have a sodomy law -- you just can't ask about having sex with each other. A legal conundrum that bends the mind. Of course, the facts of the case are the sort that will allow the Ohio courts to exercise their prejudices in all sorts of unique ways. It cannot be disputed, for example, that popping into a bathroom stall while someone is using it and asking them to have sex could be construed as "reckless" behavior. I also cannot imagine that, under those circumstances, it would have been any more allowable to have asked the man if he were gay. How would that not have been considered "importuning", under those circumstances?
The legal problem for the defendant, aside from the logical conundrum and the whole conviction thing, is that the statute does not, in fact, discriminate on the basis of gender; women aren't allowed to proposition each other, either. It's just that women, under such circumstances, are considerably less likely to try to attack each other. It is also an unfortunate fact that because this country is so uptight about sex generally and homosexuality in particular, one man propositioning another in circumstances where sexuality is unknown is more likely to lead to violence; we've seen ample evidence of such violence the past few years -- or, to be more precise, we've seen ample evidence of cases where purportedly straight men claimed to have been so revolted by such propositions that they just had to murder the one propositioning them.
Of course, the proper response to that is that any unwelcome proposition carries with it the potential for an inappropriate and excessive response; if they're going to regulate sexual propositions, then they should regulate all of them. This current law has the effect of specifically discriminating against homosexuals and their rights of association, as it were.
However, given the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court the last time the law was challenged, in 1979, I would fully expect that the conviction will be sustained and the law upheld. I am frankly baffled as to why men propositioning each other would have been "acceptable in a more barbarous age when human dignity hadn ot reached the level expected by citizens in our modern society." I am even more baffled when you consider that only 30 years ago, the behavior for which one would be "importuning" was flatly illegal in Ohio; they consider the 60s and 70s to have been "barbarous"? (It would be fascinating to know when the importuning statute was enacted. One suspects that it was a reaction to the fall of Ohio's sodomy law, but one could be mistaken.)
@ 11:13 AM CST [Link]
Good heavens. I thought Bush II Fraudulency had signed bankruptcy benefits for credit card companies (also known as "reform") into law months ago. It's actually been sitting quietly in the Senate all this time. I suppose they thought that if they sat on it long enough, it would fade from view and they could get it through without the public really noticing. And hey! that seems to have been mostly what happened.
I'm terribly impressed that the one provision the Shrubster is opposed to is the one that benefits the wealthiest. After all, how many people are in a position to buy a home in Florida or Texas (hmmm ... land of the Bush, imagine that ...) or the other states with unlimited exempitions and then declare bankruptcy? (In any event, most honest people with homes worth that much money would probably already have tried to sell it to get out from under the debts, or at least tried to refinance it. And I'm not particularly in favor of laws that would require people to lose homes of any value, but then, I think this particular "reform" law stinks to high heaven.) That said, if including the cap in the bill is something that will make His Fraudulency flatly refuse to sign it, by all means, include it in!
And of course, with unemployment rising, and the economy continuing to soften, and bankruptcies expected to hit an all time high, this would be the perfect time for the Shrub to demonstrate his "compassionate conservatism" (pardon me while I hurl) and not sign the damn thing. No doubt, however, when he signs it, he'll call it tough love or some such, as further evidence of his compassion for corporations ... er, pardon, as evidence of his compassion for the little people.
@ 06:03 PM CST [Link]
On June 25, an ad for gay and lesbian health services featuring a male Latino couple (lovers in real life) was pulled from bus shelters in the Bronx. Infinity Outdoor, the company that leases those spaces from the city, had objected to the text, which read: "I'm not gay but I sometimes have sex with other guys." Even more ominously, the city's transportation commissioner, Iris Weinshall, complimented Infinity for yanking the ad. "We feel that good taste can supersede the First Amendment," Weinshall said.
My, what an ... interesting view on Constitutional law for a public official to have. No wonder this country's in the state it's in.
The ad in question is awfully complicated in its own right. I mean, I do understand the concept that Latino men who have sex with men don't see themselves as gay; the same situation obtains with many black men who have sex with men. That said, the ad itself would be problematic for those people; wouldn't they think, "Well, if I'm not gay, why would I go to a health resource specializing in problems of gays? That's not me." I understand the purpose of branding from the business point of view for the consortium, but wouldn't it have been more effective to simply put the one sentence and the nonlexical phone number alongside the men's picture?
Of course, the differences in approach don't matter, do they? The ads aren't going to be seen by anyone else because since aesthetics take priority over the Constitution, they've been taken down. And none of New York's city council seem to feel that the Constitution is worth defending, or rather, that the Constitutional rights of some people trying to do good are worth defending.
(I cannot imagine what it would be like to come out on a billboard.)
@ 05:07 PM CST [Link]
My goodness. Turns out that there can be benefits to going through Vermont's civil union process even outside that enlightened state. Whoda thunk?
@ 02:10 PM CST [Link]
Welcome to the real world, "Real World."
@ 02:17 PM CST [Link]
Since the man is refusing to pay child support in any event, why on earth wouldn't you just send him to prison rather than give a silly and unenforceable sentence? I mean, does the judge plan to glue an industrial strength condom to his whanger? Give him a temporary vasectomy? What?
@ 02:07 PM CST [Link]
My goodness, Bush II Fraudulency does show a magnificent knack for shooting himself in the foot, doesn't he? Apparently, even considering allowing religious organizations to discriminate may have further weakened support for his faith-based initiatives plan. Losing support on the right because some conservative religious groups fear that submitting to government rules will weaken their message, losing support on the left because liberals fear that it weakens fundamental rights and church-state separation, and now losing support in the center because he's a ham-handed clod showing the political skills of a waltzing dinosaur.
@ 12:10 PM CST [Link]
Well, well, well. Utah's sodomy laws are being challenged ... by a heterosexual man. It seems that the law, which prohibits oral and anal sex only when practiced by unmarried people, is being used against him for selective prosecution. Previous suits challenging the law have been tossed because judges have said that nobody would be prosecuted under them; therefore any threat is purely theoretical. (So why wouldn't you toss the law if prosecution is theoretical?)
To be sure, I don't expect the law to be tossed, although I do suspect the charge will be dismissed; guilty or no, with respect to that law, it's clearly a case of selective prosecution because they simply don't like the kid. (He does, in fact, have a slightly more serious misdemeanor pending against him.) Utah being one of the two states of the Intermountain West retaining a sodomy law, I suspect that they want to retain the law because it puts into legal effect the Mormon proscription against homosexuals. To be sure, apparently the state of Utah hasn't used it against homosexuals in ages, so retaining the law is merely both symbolic and nonsensical.
(You know, looking at a distributional map ... sodomy laws have been retained or repealed in the oddest places. To be sure, it's been a busy year; Arizona, Maryland, Arkansas and Minnesota [just last month] all had their laws either repealed or overruled by court challenges and Texas is under appeal. But ... Massachusetts has a sodomy law? AND anti-discrimination laws, which must have been a masterpiece of negotiation. How do you protect people from discrimination when the conduct for which they are being protected is illegal?)
@ 11:55 AM CST [Link]
What, the Rolling Stones aren't enough? They have to try to manufacture one?
Yeesh. At least they could have given it a better name; it sounds like it ought to be on "The Man Show", complete with dancing Juggies.
@ 10:51 AM CST [Link]
Well, it was only a matter of time, wasn't it? It was the logical next step for them to take, and the only way in which to ensure that they get what they want. After all, a Supreme Court that actually interpreted marriage laws in light of the Constitution -- which, after all, says not one single word about marriage of any sort to anyone -- would be forced to state that all the various DOMA laws would automatically fall should any one state recognize gay marriage (and that, moreover, full faith and credit would require all states immediately to recognize and accept Vermont's civil unions as though they had taken place in their own states).
And, of course, if Congress does pass this amendment -- and if it's submitted to the floor, it will almost certainly receive the supermajorities required for passage -- the states will seize it joyfully and pass it before anyone can even blink.
@ 02:42 PM CST [Link]
A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a life sentence against a man for possession of $20 worth of cocaine, saying the punishment was ``so harsh'' that it was unconstitutional.
You know, somehow, I'm reasonably sure that the Arkansas prosecutors will offer him a sentence that is, still, fairly obnoxious. The man has already served seven years; people who go up for attempted murder serve less time, depending on what exactly it is they did. A "reasonable" sentence, under the circumstances, would simply be time served. But somehow, I don't think they'll offer that deal.
@ 01:17 PM CST [Link]
The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to practice hiring discrimination against gay people, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
Gee. What a surprise. No, really, I'm just terribly shocked. Can't you tell how shocked I am?
So now an explicit goal of Bush II Fraudulency's administration is to force cities and states to work with religious organizations, whether they want to or no, and to then force said cities and states to allow these organizations to circumvent their employment laws. The wording of the revision to Office of Management and Budget Circular #A-102 would, if adopted as suggested, accomplish this quite effectively. Of course, the Administration's position would be that no such force is intended or applied, but let's get real. Nothing in this country has the funds that the federal government has; therefore, the local governments need access to the federal funds for many things, not just the poverty alleviation programs. However, all federal funds will be cut off if the local governments apply their antidiscrimination statutes to religious organizations. It's an awfully effective example of governmental force majeure.
@ 12:36 PM CST [Link]
The trial was United States v. Kristin Gilbert. Presiding over this, the first death penalty case in Massachusetts in several decades, was the most complicated and stressful thing I've ever done (aside, perhaps, from raising teenagers). The experience left me with one unavoidable conclusion: that a legal regime relying on the death penalty will inevitably execute innocent people - not too often, one hopes, but undoubtedly sometimes. Mistakes will be made because it is simply not possible to do something this difficult perfectly, all the time. Any honest proponent of capital punishment must face this fact.
Of course, the problem isn't simply that proponents of capital punishment refuse to face the fact; most will say that they realize that this is an issue. (With the exception, of course, of current and past governors of Virginia, Oklahoma, and, most especially, the great and glorious state of Texas.) The problem is that the reaction of most such proponents is: "Yeah? So? Your point being?"
@ 11:23 AM CST [Link]
I'm sorry, but John McWhorter actually IS somewhat disingenuous. Granted that the book itself seems to contain ideas worth thinking about and talking about, if the summation in the review is accurate. Granted that saying anything at all about race outside certain specific orthodoxies is going to get you merrily trashed by everyone. Nonetheless, when you advocate ideas that you know will be controversial, and then proceed to write articles about those ideas for an outfit like American Enterprise and to appear on Politically Incorrect to advocate positions with which you actively disagree, then you have no scope to complain that people are lumping you with ideologues you dislike; you're doing it to your own damn self. McWhorter sounds like generally intelligent man with much to say, and a startlingly naive viewpoint from which he's saying it.
@ 12:34 PM CST [Link]
Many black gay and bisexual men learn early not to talk about their sexuality, not to seek care, get tested for HIV or tell each other if they test positive for the virus. Some are shamed into silence and so stay in marriages, putting their wives, children and male sex partners at risk. [...] many believe lingering negative attitudes toward gay and bisexual men and their own guilt -- much of it stemming from religious beliefs -- are fueling the rise in HIV infection among young African-American gay men.
And another take on the whole thing:
African-American AIDS educators cited many reasons for the statistics for young black gays. In part, young black gay and bisexual men have unsafe sex for the same reasons young people of all races do: They are young and believe they're invincible. They incorrectly think AIDS medicines that extend people's lives are really a cure. And they are too young to have seen friends die of AIDS.
Morton said he has unsafe sex only with certain men. "I look for security and honesty, and if I'm comfortable with someone," he said as he stood outside Re-Bar in downtown Seattle late one night with several friends. "The whole issue of AIDS and all that can be so intense, and condoms can spoil the mood."
Yes, well ... I dare say that the side effects of some of the medications might spoil the mood even more. I mean, there's nothing like getting nice and heavy and passionate and having it interrupted by the odd case of explosive diarrhea. Or the fact that the medications don't work for everyone or that some people simply can't take them.
Why are people such idiots?
@ 11:27 AM CST [Link]
You know, I've never once understood, in a culture that states that it dislikes public drunkenness as much as this one does, why it's not only tolerated but encouraged at sporting events. You put alcohol and sports together and very ugly things are bound to happen.
I've never once felt the least urge to go to a Cubs game. Both because I don't particularly like baseball and because I've been warned repeatedly that Wrigleyville in general and Wrigley Field in particular are not places that a person of the nonwhite persuasion would particularly want to be. Strange thing is, I'm in Lakeview, directly south of Wrigleyville, all the time, and I've never had any real difficulties. Somehow, Addison Street seems to mark the border between civil behavior and yahoos.
As far as Aunt Jemima goes ... I do know some people who work for the Quaker public relations department -- Quaker owns the Aunt Jemima brand. And frankly, they don't know what to do with her. Some in the company would like to retire her, but the board is reluctant to do so because, to put it bluntly, she still sells pretty well. As one of the PR people put it, "Nobody thinks about her image and how some people think it's offensive unless it's specifically mentioned, and even then, they dismiss it because she still sells." The PR department does all it can to hide her away; she's not even mentioned on their consumer web site, and on their "Links to other Quaker web sites" section, they provide no link to the Aunt Jemima web site.
All that said .... I have no idea what the National Council for Negro Women is or does -- I've never heard of it before, although I've heard of its founder, Mary McLeod Bethune -- but I was, frankly, aghast that they've affiliated themselves with the Aunt Jemima brand for their Women of Wonder Awards. I do wonder what on earth they could have been thinking.
@ 11:18 AM CST [Link]
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!