Category Archives: Hypocrisy

Amycare: replace doctors with veterinarians

8 Replies

Anyone who has ever taken a pet to the veterinarian has probably thought:  geez, why can’t humans get health care like that?  I mean, at the most basic level, vets are just cooler than MDs.  Think of all the vets you’ve known in your life and then all the doctors:  who would you rather hang with? Case closed.

But it’s more than that.  Our older dog is now seeing a specialist, so we are having a good deal of exposure to the veterinary profession.  This has placed the differences in stark contrast.

Both our regular vet and the specialist call us a day or two after each appointment just to see how our dog is doing.  I’m not sure my PCP would know me if she ran into me at the Target the day after my annual physical.  And I really do like my PCP; it’s just not part of the human medical culture to follow up.

The vet specialist also faxes a report to the regular vet after each appointment, and calls *him* to follow up.  When I needed one doctor to send my file to another doctor a few years back — just send the damn file; no communication; no follow up — I had to make multiple phone calls and fill out multiple forms, and I still showed up at the second doctor’s office to find that no communication in any medium had occurred between the two doctors, their staff, or their file rooms.

And our vet appears to use computer technology from the post-1995 period.  At a recent human medical appointment, the receptionist handed me a form when I checked in.  I pointed out that none of the items on the form had changed since the last appointment.  No good:  “It’s a policy, we have to update our information.”  But there’s nothing to update.  “Sorry, it’s a policy.  We require this form.”  A form made of paper, from dead trees, which they expected me to interact with using primitive ballpoint technology.  I pointed out that they had also every single piece of information requested on the form having photocopied my driver’s license and insurance card only moments ago, but I was instructed to please sit down and just fill out the form.  After I filled out the top half, I handed it back and pointed out that since I was the insured, the information requested on the bottom half of the paper was already filled in on the top.  Nope.  Still not good enough.  “The two halves of the form go to different places,” I was told, “You have to fill out both.”  At about that moment, I looked at the receptionist’s computer and noticed:  DOS.  That’s right, green type on a black screen.  In 2011.  I can go up to a computer terminal at the Bed, Bath and Beyond and find out what wedding gifts my friends and family in distant cities have registered for, but MY DOCTOR is using DOS, and asking me to fill out identical information on the top and bottom halves of a piece of paper in much the way I filled out a field trip permission slip in 1971.

You can’t really do a head-to-head comparison of the financial aspect of human and dog care, because the veterinary industry lacks many of the important cutting edge features of the American human medical system:  astronomical insurance company executive salaries; palatial insurance company corporate campuses; and cubical farms staffed with adjusters trained to deny your claims.  So it’s not really fair to point out that the financial aspect of dog care is much simpler:  after each appointment, we hand them our credit card and we’re done.  But that is at least part of the point:  the vet industry doesn’t have to support legions of insurance executives, so the amount we’re paying is a very small fraction of what our insurance company pays our doctors.  And honestly, how different *is* a human body from a dog’s?  We seem to have many of the same internal organs.  Can human treatment really be that much more expensive?  (This is where my brother will blame the lawyers.  Love you, Bruce!)

Finally, of course, no matter how intrusive the medical procedure, I have *never* been offered a treat.  Not once.

Political rhetoric

3 Replies

A really smart friend of mine asked, “For my liberal friends only: when we’re objecting to cross-hairs, should we maybe feel a little bit bad about ‘somewhere in Texas, a village….’?”   The question made me think, as all of her questions do.  So here are my thoughts on four kinds of political rhetoric.

Juvenile name-calling.  Somewhere in Texas . . .; Bu$h; Busshit; Nobama.  Calling Bush or Palin stupid or Obama an elitist, or candidly using the words “socialist” or “fascist” as epithets these days has precisely the substantive content and rhetorical impact as calling someone a poopyhead.  Yes, it cheapens the dialog, but it wasn’t very expensive to start with.  The key effect of language like this — at least on me — is to make me turn the page or click away from the site, confident that I’m not missing anything enlightening or even funny.

Gun-related words.  I’m in favor of generally giving people credit for metaphor.  Crosshairs over congressional districts was at worst bad taste, and probably pretty banal.  I’ve described an opponent’s brief full of silly arguments as a “target-rich environment” and plaintiffs’ lawyers who make silly arguments as “friendly fire” without the remotest connection to an actual firearm.*  Indeed, when Rand Paul came out against the ADA and enthusiastically in favor of the Second Amendment, I joked that he might have arrived at a more efficient remedial process:  access at the point of a gun.  “My friend Glock and I would like you to install a ramp.  Now.”   Again, no intent to replace my Westlaw subscription with a semi-automatic, but I thoroughly enjoyed the mental image.

Of course, actually calling for someone’s death crosses a very important line, and calling for “second amendment remedies” or  explicitly for political violence comes damn close.

De-legitimizing language.  Now, this sort of rhetoric really bugs me.  Throughout the Bush years, there were liberal bloggers who insisted on calling Bush the “Resident” rather than “President,” and  asserting that “he’s not my president.”  These days we have “birthers” — folks who think Obama was not born in the US and therefore not legitimately qualified to hold the office.  Assertions that a president from either party is a tyrant or a dictator may fall into the juvenile category, but they also suggest that he is trying to change our political system, rather than simply implementing policies the speaker disagrees with.  The country thrives when the loyal opposition is both loyal and opposed.  We need people in every administration who believe in the country and its system, but disagree with the current guy’s policies.   Rationally, reasonably, preferably civilly.  Arguing that the president isn’t legitimate is completely unhelpful, whether from the left or right.

Knee-slapping hypocrisy.  People from Alaska criticizing federal spending.  Anyone who supported the Patriot Act complaining about over-regulation.  This type of discourse may be the most pernicious, because it doesn’t go away once we’ve all had a good laugh.  But damn, I love it!  It’s an excellent reminder that, as human beings, we’re all about 97% full of shit, with the differences at the margins.

***********************
* However, when I propose to engage in kitchen remodeling using a flame-thrower, I intend to be taken very, very seriously.  I will be exonerated by a jury of my peers.

A guide to using the concept of “death” in politics

3 Replies

Encouraging conversations about end-of-life issues before you’re in a coma and your estranged husband & his new girlfriend get to decide for you = “Death Panels.”

Telling your supporters to “reload,” saying “violent revolution is on the table,”  proposing “second amendment remedies” to political disagreements, and holding a fundraiser to shoot automatic weapons to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” = “Hey!  Wha?  Why is everyone looking at us?”

Things That are Inexplicably OK

4 Replies

I’m not talking about things that are bad but widely acknowledged to be bad like, murder or the Dallas Cowboys.  And I’m not talking about things that I’m confident are bad but as to which I grudgingly acknowledge that marginally reasonable minds could differ, like mayonnaise or light beer.  I’m talking about things that allegedly smart people in allegedly polite company seem to have no problem with but that are completely morally indefensible.

Peter Singer.  This guy is a philosophy professor at Princeton who advocates killing infants with disabilities.  Seriously.  I’m not sure this guy is on anyone’s radar outside the black-turtleneck-and-tweed world and the disability rights world, but now you know:  Princeton has on its faculty a professor who favors infanticide for disabled kids, largely based on his utilitarian approach which is based, in turn, on the sound philosophical principle that upper class white guys with tenure can judge the quality of life experienced by the rest of the world and make life and death decisions based on that judgment. I’m all for academic freedom and the First Amendment, and I don’t advocate that this guy be fired or punished for these absurd views.  I’m just wondering why on earth he’s taken seriously.  It’s like Princeton deciding to hire a Holocaust denier or “intelligent design” advocate — or really someone who offered a principled, philosophical defense of slavery.  I would defend any of those hires in the name of academic freedom, but I really think that many more people would join me in puzzlement as to why the hell such a person has a chair at Princeton.

The Tomahawk Chop. Atlanta Braves fans spend a large part of each game making gestures designed to mimic a tomahawk and humming a tune designed to mimic what antediluvian Hollywood thought was Native American music.  This is just gross racial mockery.*  I have to confess (sorry, Bruce) that I feel the same way about “Redskins.”  I don’t have a problem in general with Native American team names — Braves, Indians, Seminoles — because there are plenty of other groups-of-people names:  Padres, Vikings, Patriots, Mariners, Royals, Twins, Pirates, Rangers, Canucks, Canadiens, Packers, Texans, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Raiders, Senators, Kings, Celtics, Cavaliers, Trail Blazers, Warriors.  And, um, Wizards?  But “Redskins” is an epithet, not a generic group-of-people name.  Sorry.**

Flying the Confederate flag. What part of treason is unclear to these folks?  Seriously.  I love the fact that throughout the south “United We Stand” bumper stickers are pasted side-by-side with the stars & bars.  Again, I have no problem, as a First Amendment matter, with flying whatever flag you want.  Just don’t asked to be taken seriously when you display the Confederate flag and question other people’s patriotism.

“Free Mumia.” Give the man a fair trial, but damn, it sure looks like he shot a cop.  Let’s not free him til we’ve tried him fairly and he’s been acquitted.

This is a very very partial list.  Feel free to share your contributions in the comments!  (Really!  I LOVE comments!)

******************
* I always loved that Jane Fonda, during her Ted Turner period, could regularly be found in the Braves’ audience chopping away.  For you conservatives who hate her for being a liberal, the joke’s on you:  she’s just another shallow celebrity looking for attention — and you give it to her!

** I predict that this will engender more brotherly ire than all my liberal political rantings put together.

“Not Pretty…But Harmless”

3 Replies

Subtitle:  Drinking with white people, part deux.  Went to a new hairdresser today.  Turns out — I know this will come as a shock — he’s gay. [**] Within the first few minutes of our conversation, I learned that he had a husband to whom he’d gotten married in Vegas.  Awesome!  I’m a huge fan of marriage equality!  We had a grand ol time discussing the California Prop 8 case, how cool it was that he got married, what it was like to work with your husband (something we had in common), the comparative virtues of Lady Gaga’s meat outfit vs. Bjork’s swan outfit, and his penchant for (another surprise!) decorating.  Little did I know, my drinking-with-white-people experience had begun.  I learned about his fantastic historic house, in his fantastic historic neighborhood right downtown, where he and his husband could walk to many incredible restaurants.

But!  They were going to turn the historic property across the street into a 40 bed alcohol rehab facility!  Luckily he and his neighbors got together and raised hell, so they rejected it.  (Still not clear who the “theys” were.)  I weighed the pros and cons of explaining the Fair Housing Act and NIMBYism* at this point, but honestly I really liked the haircut and … well this is the sort of compromises you make when you really like the haircut but the stylist is an asshole.

Then it got worse.  Of course, he said, there are already two of them in the neighborhood.  Two facilities.  One is for, you know, mentally challenged people.

“You know, not pretty… but harmless.”

At this point, thank God, he was through cutting and was putting some sort of styling glop in my hair.  I rubbed my eyes and explained that I was a civil rights lawyer, that we did fair housing cases, and that all of these people and facilities had just as much right as he and his husband did to live there.  Of course, he sighed, you know we take them food at Christmas.

I guess I’m especially bummed because I’m guessing this guy has been on the receiving end of prejudice in his life but still could not see past his own prejudices.  This is, of course, not uncommon, but every damn time it depresses the hell out of me.

And I really did like the haircut.

Update:  I guess I should be clear on what was implicit in the last sentence.  NFW am I going back to that stylist or salon.  Oh well.

***************************************************
*Not In My BackYard.

** Update:  A friend quite properly pointed out that this sentence itself — in its attempt at humor — is pretty stereotyped, like saying “I know this will come as a shock” that my banker is Jewish or an African-American is a good athlete.  All I can say is: yup.  I screwed that one up.  In the tradition of blogging (funny to have a tradition for something that has only about ten years of history), I’m not deleting it.  Rather in my own tradition, I’ll just go forward feeling stupid about it.

More on the Islamic Community Center – a response to a conservative friend

3 Replies

A friend who is also a lawyer wrote this challenging question:  do I think that everyone who is uncomfortable with the mosque/community center is racist or Islamophobic.  Since my draft answer ended up being sort of long-winded, I figured I’d just post it.

Dear Friend –

Thanks for challenging me.  I like that — our views are meant to be challenged.  The answer is:  I think folks may be uncomfortable with the community center for a large variety of reasons, many deeply personal, many non-racist.  As I mentioned in a previous post, my father died in an ICU in Orlando and I haven’t been willing to visit Florida in the 13 years since.  It’s painful and it’s irrational, but I get it.

While there are many personal reasons for differing reactions to the proposed community center, I think the people who are getting loud about it are largely political opportunists, with a smattering of bigots and Islamophobes.

We’re both trained as lawyers, which means we know how to cross examine and impeach a witness.  Does an answer make sense?  Is it consistent with the witness’s other answers?  Here is what I see with respect to this current manufactured controversy:

  • The Imam we are now supposed to suspect was sent by the Bush administration to promote religious tolerance around the world.
  • The area near but not in Ground Zero has never before been hallowed.  There is an existing mosque almost as close, as well as a large number of random, un-holy uses:  a strip club; stores; restaurants; etc.
  • The other 9/11 site — the Pentagon — contains a mosque.  No one cares.
  • No one has previously had much respect for the feelings of victims of tragedies.  When the NRA hosted its convention in Denver after the Columbine massacre, it was the right wingers standing up for their constitutional right to do that, and explaining that the depraved actions of two boys could not be blamed on a larger group with whom they claimed affinity, that the pain of the Columbine families should not dictate where they held their convention.  No one cares that there is still a gun store a mile from the high school.   No one cares that there are Christian churches near the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
  • Those who question the presence of Saudi money do not seem to have a problem that the same Saudi guy owns a big chunk of News Corp, Fox’s parent company.  If it’s bad for the Saudis to hurt our feelings architecturally, isn’t it worse for them to have the power to blast propaganda into our living rooms?  And the people who are now complaining about the mosque never raised their voices about the Bush family’s close ties to these same people, and the fact that they were all secretly flown out of the country when the non-Saudi Americans were grounded and grieving.

None of the reasons we are hearing for the anger being directed at the community center holds up to cross-examination.  That doesn’t make the objectors racists; it makes them opportunists.  When the political identities were different (the Bush administration; NRA; Christian churches) there was no objection.  When Sarah Palin hadn’t yet tweeted about it, there was no objection.  That’s not racist, it’s political.

But another thing we lawyers are trained to do is to work with hypotheticals.  So let’s take the hypothetical that you’re right, that this building is being built with evil intent and dirty money.  I think by protesting we are missing an enormous opportunity, the opportunity that is being seized so eloquently by Michael Bloomberg, the opportunity that your examples of European bigotry cry out for.  WE’RE BETTER THAN THEY ARE.  This is our chance to say to the world:   We can choose tolerance.  We can embrace this community center.  We can DEFINE this community center.  It will become part of OUR message,  not some intuited message of Moorish victory.  And note, we have not heard from Al Qaeda that this is a “memorial to victory.”  The only people saying that are Americans!  We are shouting from the rooftops the precise message we profess to fear.

What if, from the beginning, we had all embraced the community center in the name of American patriotism.  It would crush any alternative meaning.  (Candidly, I keep imaging America as the Whos Down in Whoville, holding hands and singing songs, with the evil terrorist Grinch looking down from his perch, disappointed that he could not steal the true spirit of Christmas.)

When the world looks at us, do you want them to see the whiners on Fox and the screamers at Ground Zero?  Or do you want them to see Michael Bloomberg saying:

Just as we fought communism by showing the world the power of free markets and free elections, so must we fight terrorism by showing the world the power of religious freedom and cultural tolerance. Freedom and tolerance will always defeat tyranny and terrorism – and that’s the great lesson of the 20th century, and we must not abandon it here in the 21st.

I encourage you to read his whole speech. And I challenge you not to burst with pride and patriotism when you do.  But you also ask that moderate Muslims denounce terrorism.  Many have, over and over.  Here is what Imam Rauf had to say at a memorial to Daniel Pearl, who died at the hands of terrorists.  It is generally a very moving tribute to religious harmony.  But specifically, he said:

We are here especially to seek your forgiveness and of your family for what has been done in the name of Islam.

My views on how we should respond to this come from a deep pride in our country and a conviction that we are better than the rest of the world.  We are a nation of immigrants.  It’s our strength.  We are a nation of people who can disagree with each other and live side by side. There’s no synagogue in Mecca because WE’RE BETTER THAN THEY ARE.  Do the people making that comparison really want to measure our religious tolerance against that of the Saudis?

The common ground I hope we can find is that, while some people regard the community center as benign and others as suspicious, we all agree that “Freedom and tolerance will always defeat tyranny and terrorism – and that’s the great lesson of the 20th century, and we must not abandon it here in the 21st.”

I hope you don’t mind that I blogged in response to your question.  Please feel free to use the comments to tell me how full of shit I am!

Your Friend,

Amy

We Did Not Build this Country on Sensitivities

Leave a reply

I’m becoming a huge fan of Michael Bloomberg. He has the brains to understand our constitution, the balls to support it even when it’s complicated or hurtful, and the words to explain to the rest of us that

if we say that a mosque or a community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom. We would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting.

Amen. Read the whole thing.

The Muslim-community-center-somewhere-in-lower-Manhattan-just-around-the-corner-from-the strip-club-and-BBQ-joint controversy is quickly becoming one of my favorites of all time, and not only because I’m having so much fun reading Bloomberg’s latest rhetorical demolition of the chickenshits who would enshrine fear and prejudice so close to the site where our enemies tried send the very same message.

No, this one rocks — with apologies to the unfortunate African-American construction worker who got heckled for simply being Black in the vicinity of Ground Zero — because it is so rife with right-wing hypocrisy.

For example, one of the righties’ new talking points is that they’re not prejudiced (no! no!), they’re just questioning the source of the money. You know, it comes from that Arab guy, the one who, oops, owns a large chunk of News Corp, and hangs out with the Bush family.

OK, yes, I get my news from the Daily Show. Laughing at the news is the only way it’s bearable these days. But I challenge any mosque-fearing righties to explain why Saudi money is scary when it’s funding a community center but not when it owns a big piece of a major right-wing propaganda machine.

I’m also loving the fact that my gun-shop-near-Columbine example turned out to to be not only snarky but (almost) TRUE!! The NRA was asked to move its convention from Denver the year after Columbine based on (wait for it) sensitivities. Charlton Heston explained, correctly, that “American must stop this predictable pattern of reaction.”  (It’s at the 7:24ish mark, though Jon Stewart is pretty funny, t0o.)  We can’t blame the NRA for the acts of two disturbed kids, and we can’t blame an entire religion for the acts of thugs who profess its beliefs. And most of all, we can’t compromise our laws and values in the name of sensitivities.  We are tougher than that. We did not become a beacon to the rest of the world by whining every time someone did something that hurt someone’s feelings.

Update: No longer funny. “A city cab driver is in the hospital after being stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked if he was Muslim, police tell NY1.” It’s a pogrom. Suck on that, Abe Fucking Foxman.

Update 2:  This appeared on the Facebook page of someone I don’t even know, but I thought it was cool.  After subjecting the question to quantitative analysis, the clear conclusion is:  Get A Grip!