Northern Wisdom

Why NO: on Prop 19?

2010-11-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

The negative physical and mental effects of marijuana use are well documented. (each statement of fact has been published in well-done academic studies. I can provide some papers to you if you would like)

1) Social: It’s associated with lower educational accomplishment, lower work productivity, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, and heart and lung disease.Cannabis use in adolescence is a predictor of depression in later life. Students who regularly use marijuana have lower grade and test scores and are less likely to achieve personal goals. Marijuana smokers often jeopardize their future by engaging in risky sexual practices or committing criminal acts. Marijuana impairs a person’s judgment, coordination, balance, ability to pay attention and reaction time.

2) Physical: All forms of cannabis are mind-altering drugs due to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active chemical in marijuana. THC affects nerve cells in the region of the brain where memories are formed. This makes it difficult for the user to recall recent events. Chronic exposure to THC may hasten the age related loss of nerve cells. Smoking marijuana is more harmful than smoking tobacco because it contains 50-70 % more carcinogens than tobacco. It has the same adverse effects on the respiratory system as tobacco smoke and is associated with chronic cough, respiratory infections, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. Marijuana use has been found to increase blood pressure and heart rate and to decrease the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.

3) Illicit nature: Considered a “gateway drug,” it often leads to abuse of even more dangerous substances. Most adolescents who use other illicit drugs admit that marijuana was the first drug they used. It is often intentionally used with other substances, such as alcohol or crack cocaine. And it has addictive qualities.

4) There has been some argument that legalizing it will decrease drug traffickers' crime. But when alcohol was legalized again, mobs turned to other alternatives - so the result was that it legalized a drug (alcohol) that is associated with destruction of many lives but did not decrease the crime it intended.

The Women's Movement

2010-05-26T08:00:00.000-07:00

My friend sent this note along to me -

"Zach's mom really liked our gift from the WWHI. It sounds like
fantastic work and I was happy to support it. We had no ideas for
mother's day so it worked out great. I've been thinking more about
women's empowerment as a couple of weeks ago in Relief Society, the
lesson about prophets brought up the question of what were some of the
most important teachings and contributions by prophets. One woman's
answer "women should stay home" and another said "Prophets brought us
through the hardest times in history, the great depression, the 2
world wars, and the women's movement." I cannot tell you how steamed I
was, especially about the women's movement comment. It's hard as women
with so many choices to look down at those who fought hard for that,
and it's nice to have someone like you who is fighting for women
elsewhere who don't have options!"

The comment re: "got us through the women's movement" is an unfortunate understanding of Mormon history.

Brigham Young, a ferocious defender of women's rights who sent many women, notably Emiline B. Wells, to join the suffrage movements and fight for gender equality, said this, "If I had a choice of educating my daughters or my sons because of opportunity constraints, I would choose to educate my daughters."

Subjective Understanding.

2010-03-01T10:34:00.000-08:00

Subjective review of bills and political decisions is dangerous...and is becoming more influential and dangerous here in the United States. Believing a blog or pundit from either side is ok, but can not be depended on exclusively for opinion forming, truth seeking ventures. I have often been accused of being a liberal - which I don't deny I lean more to the left - but I have always viewed myself as a thinking person. I implore all readers to do the same. Here is an example: The bill HB12 at first glance, or at least at first glance of a news caption, appears to criminalize women for miscarriages...WHAT? THAT IS CRIMINAL AGAINST WOMEN! would be my first response...and turns out was the response of many...

HOWEVER

My friend who is a studious and intelligent government process individual, revealed this:

"HB12 is the major abortion bill this session and as such draws diverging interest groups to their traditional battle lines. HB12 was written in response to the recent case in Vernal, UT where a young pregnant woman hired a man to assault her with the goal of causing an abortion. The assualt occured, the baby lived, the man was punished and the woman's case was dismissed since the act was interpreted as an abortion legal under Utah law.

HB12 allows for prosecution of a woman who "kills" her unborn child outside of a standard medical abortion. The language specifically includes exemptions for women who refuse medical care. That is, refusing medical care such as a C-section or prenatal vitamins and then experiencing a fetal death as a result of refusing the medical advice, would not constitute homicide. Additionally, there is the following wording

"This bill...provides that a woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child: is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman..."

Could a woman be prosecuted for not wearing a seatbelt or going skiing and subsequently experiencing a miscarraige? Perhaps, but I think this would be a very unlikely outcome.

In my opinion, the bigger concern is the more likely scenario where women who seek illegal abortions would face homicide charges. But since early-term abortion is legal in Utah, I personally do not know how many illegal, so called "back alley" abortions occur.

This bill, however, does not encroach on a woman's current access to medical abortion law in Utah. I personally do not agree that meaningful life begins at conception so I am opposed to a law that treats an unborn child on par with a living child. That being said, in my opinion, we spend way too much time discussing and fighting abortion. While we do need to remain vigilent to ensure abortion remains a legal choice, I personally am not overly concerned about this bill."

Hmmm....a process of intelligent discovery. I have since reviewed the bill myself and agree with her review. Take matters in your own hands! An ignorant population is full of docile believers - liberal or conservative.

THINK.

I Think Better of Men

2010-02-24T21:19:00.000-08:00

This is a particularly interesting article - I agree with her re: although much freedom has come to women, is it really enslavement through sexuality simply disguised as choice? She observes, "I am not so stupid as to say that women don't enjoy power too, but ours is still exclusively sexual and entirely tied to the relentless ticking of the clock....And so long as there are plenty of women willing to do both(standing next to men like Spitzer and being prostitutes who sleep with men like Spitzer), men will have all the power..."

I don't disagree with this, however:

I think one argument which is rarely if ever discussed??? Why is there not an expectation for men to be better men...meaning - even though there are women who offer their bodies for pay, if there was no consumer, there would be no incentive for those women to stay in that market. Have we signed men off as the weaker sex by allowing or accepting or justifying their sexual desires as 'natural' if acted upon without restraint or self-mastery?

I think better of men.

Saga shows this is no country for old bags
Christie Blatchford
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
One of my girlfriends always says that before she dies she would like, just for a day or even an hour, to have a penis and so understand the incredible glory that is male power.
On this side of the gender divide, we all figure it must originate with the private bits, there being no other explanation for that astonishing sense of entitlement.
There are so many variations on the theme, New York Governor Eliot (Ness) Spitzer just one of them.
We all have our stories - the flabby, middle-aged guy who believes that if he can "get" this good-looking woman here, there's no reason he can't also "get" that better, younger one over there; the way the least attractive dude in the world confidently will parade naked before a new lover while she won't make a move without concealing one imperfect part or another with a towel; the very ordinary Joe who should count his lucky stars that his bed was graced by some far more accomplished, attractive dame but who behaves, afterward, as a horrid wretch.
Silda Wall Spitzer's tale - her hubby revealed as an alleged regular customer of a high-priced call girl outfit called the Emperor's Club - is an old familiar one, interesting only because of his high office and his carefully, and abrasively, staked out claim to the moral high ground as governor and before that, as crusading attorney-general.
In one brief period a few summers ago, two male acquaintances of mine separately popped into town and demanded we have dinner, only to separately regale me with stories of how at the age of 50 they were just barely reaching the apex of their attractiveness to women.
Both are fine and talented fellows, but the one I quite like is an overweight, sweaty guy with a reputation for hired girlfriends (at our dinner he announced that his next one, who should be as pretty as the last one, would have to pay her own way), and the one I don't much care for is a skinny nerd with an enormous ego.
Several years younger, no more or less physically repellant than they are, with what I judged to be no more or less baggage, and no more or less successful, at the time I hadn't had a date in years. I wanted desperately to believe they were blowing smoke out their respective lumpen and saggy butts, but knew they were not, alas.
Eager to get out of there, and not wanting by any measure to be in the debt of either one of these two clowns, I paid the tabs - without a murmured protest from either one - and rushed home, there to contemplate why I should not slash my wrists.
Big fat cheap old guy: Sex symbol. Skinny weirdo cheap old guy: Sex symbol. Unfat, not cheap slightly younger old bag: Old bag.
The 47-page official complaint from the assistant U.S. attorneys who prepared the file - God bless America, the whole kit and caboodle is easily accessible on the Web - is replete with evidence of male power and how women variously aid and abet that universal aggrandizement process.
Forget the few pages that detail the arrangements with "Client No. 9," the man identified as Mr. Spitzer.
My favourite bit, perhaps because I know several men who are fascinated by strippers and/or prostitutes but who always insist the women are all also bright intellects simply fallen upon hard times - I get what men like about them, but abhor that they also need to paint them as hard-working entrepreneurs, let alone nascent rocket scientists - is a magnificently illiterate Jan. 24 e-mail from the young Englishwoman the Emperor's Club was trying to recruit and who was quibbling over the proposed fee of £500 an hour.
"I have just spoke to a friend of mine who done her first job for you," she wrote. "Unfortunately I wasn't very happy to find out that its only 500 ph + over 50 per cent commission fees ... I was little bit shock and confuse that she had a sex with him twice in an hour and without [him] taking her out for dinner before.
"So I am very sorry but I don't think this is my kind of thing ... I was told by your assistant in London this is more like a dating agency than an escort ..."
Then, in delightful mimicry of that very old joke, the young woman wrote, clearly aggrieved, "But to provide sex for £500 an hour, I just thing [she meant, poor lamb, "think"] this is not a price I would ever consider of doing it for ..."
But also in the complaint is Mark Brener, the alleged kingpin of the ring, describing one prostitute as looking "like a butcher in my opinion"; there's the client complaining that a prostitute was "more sex than sexy" (methinks she was too efficient, and did not act enough like a real girlfriend); there's another of the owners, worrying that a prostitute may have rushed a client, noting, "we just found out the other day that she has children and she went to pick them up from school immediately afterwards ... the girls who have children tend to have ... a little more baggage going on"; there's the client who wanted "multiple girls for multiple hours."
I am not so stupid as to say that women don't enjoy power too, but ours is still exclusively sexual and entirely tied to the relentless ticking of the clock. It lasts a New York minute, not a lifetime.
Only a very few of us choose to actually make money from our money-makers. More, like the hooker who thought she should get a nice dinner too, settle for being kept, one way or another. Ms. Wall Spitzer, who ditched her own career as a corporate lawyer to raise their three children while Mr. Spitzer pursued his political goals, seems to me to have made a variation on that ancient bargain.
You couldn't pay me enough to have stood beside that man this week, as she did, when he faced the press and confessed, sort of, his sins. You also couldn't have paid me enough to have sex with him (or anyone else) either, as the prostitute Kristen did. And so long as there are plenty of women willing to do both, men will have all the power, and it will continue not to matter in the slightest what old bags think.

A Must See

2010-01-25T08:06:00.000-08:00

Canadians are undergoing ridiculous scrutiny whilst trying to cross the border. There were dirty rumors that the "Christmas Day Bomber" came from the Great White North...he didn't. I love Canadian Humour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZfbTlYpKYo

Canada.

2009-12-09T12:11:00.000-08:00

My sister sent me this email...

Once in a while someone does a nice job of describing a Canadian, this time it was an Australian dentist.

An Australian Definition of a Canadian

In case anyone asks you who a Canadian is . . .

You probably missed it in the local news, but there was a report that someone in Pakistan had advertised in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed a Canadian - any Canadian.

An Australian dentist wrote the following editorial to help define what a Canadian is, so they would know one when they found one.

A Canadian can be English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. A Canadian can be Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, Arab, Pakistani, or Afghan.

A Canadian may also be a Cree, Métis, Mohawk, Blackfoot, Sioux, or one of the many other tribes known as native Canadians. A Canadian's religious beliefs range from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or none. In fact, there are more Muslims inCanada than in Afghanistan. The key difference is that in Canada they are free to worship as each of them chooses. Whether they have a religion or no religion, each Canadian ultimately answers only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

A Canadian lives in one of the most prosperous lands in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognize the right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

A Canadian is generous and Canadians have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return. Canadians welcome the best of everything, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services, and the best minds.

But they also welcome the least - the oppressed, the outcast, and the rejected.

These are the people who built Canada. You can try to kill a Canadian if you must as other bloodthirsty tyrants in the world have tried but in doing so you could just be killing a relative or a neighbour. This is because Canadians are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, can be a Canadian.

reflection on parenting...

2009-10-29T09:21:00.000-07:00

In this NYT article, I found myself laughing outloud when I read the following:

"Most of my married friends now have children, the rewards of which appear to be exclusively intangible and, like the mysteries of some gnostic sect, incommunicable to outsiders. In fact it seems from the outside as if these people have joined a dubious cult: they claim to be much happier and more fulfilled than ever before, even though they live in conditions of appalling filth and degradation, deprived of the most basic freedoms and dignity, and owe unquestioning obedience to a capricious and demented master."

That is funny...

Civility

2009-10-26T09:57:00.001-07:00

I have written several posts regarding the decline I have noticed of basic civility. There has been some disagreement, which may have come because I stated that the lack of civility had increased in anger and contempt and gave a specific example of the swastika in the grass with Obama's name next to it. But, I am still not convinced that things aren't worse than they have ever been...I will retract my argument as to the cause, but will not retract my comment about the fact - people are more outwardly hateful now.

My father is the head of a public school district in the United States. He has in the last several months received anger-filled attempts to change things such as using a "spanish name" on one of their new high schools or having Obama's speech to the children broadcast in the schools (he was called a facist pig in one email)...but there are hundreds of emails bearing the same tone. I would never keep people from having the opinions that they do. The problem? Why is my dad a "facist pig" if what they don't agree with is a policy of a President of their country speaking to their children. This is where civility is lost; Personal attacks, fear-mongering and hate.

Read this: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility

The Niqab

2009-10-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Shaikh of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Tantawi announced that there would be a ban of the fully veiled face called, niqab or a burqa in all-female areas of public universities. There was a protest against this by women who wanted to wear it. This is an admittedly tough issue for me. The fully-veiled body has damaging effects on women. Rickets leads to prolonged labour and eventual death because these women don't get any sunlight. There is something that wretches in me when the justification for such is because men can't control themselves and so women must be the one who is controlled. However, I voice loudly that women who do not CHOOSE to wear this covering should be free from contempt, rape, violence and even death. So if women should be free to choose not to, a full-out ban on those who do, makes equally no sense. The key is choice...and fear of the burning hell if they don't, makes me nervous that 'choice' has relinquished its true application in the name of religion. This is peculiar since many Islamic scholars, including the body of deciders in this case, have determined that full covering was never a tenet of Muhammad's Islam, but rather a practice of tribal groups that extremism has adopted (including the punishments for not wearing the complete covering...)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/13/niqab/index.html

Relative Hate...

2009-10-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to my previous post, the type of hate described in this article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113966999

outweighs the kind of hate we have just been discussing. I think the most poignant statement is from a witness to it all "I have never seen such violence in my life. I swear that this is the first time in Guinea that we have witnessed women's bodies being treated as if they were battlefields." I can hardly breathe when I acknowledge that human beings are doing this to one another - and women are often the most injured, the most violated and the most destroyed.

A discussion of the dangers of mob violence must be examined as the woman in the article who escaped her kidnap and subsequent horror explained that she escaped because a member of the "mob" was forced to step out and realize that she was an INDIVIDUAL. He knew her. She was human to him...not just chattle.

Message of Hate.

2009-10-13T11:31:00.000-07:00

Where are the conservative pundits now? Are they reviling this sort of hate? Have they stated, "we disagree with Obama's political policies but we do not support hate." I haven't seen it. This is a representation of the dangerous hate and height of anger that has taken over the right, this last nine months. Dangerous.

Public Schools

2009-10-07T08:22:00.001-07:00

Last night I was at a discussion group re: "the future of schools". I am a huge advocate of public schools and stand by the claim that schooling available to all is what makes this country thrive. In contrast, I have visited many countries where education is offered only to the rich or male population, if offered at all. So my closing statement was this - "of course there are problems in our school systems. Of course improvements are needed, and of course, there is disparity within the system itself. But it is offered to all. Public schools are the source of equality..." There was a public teacher in attendance who made the astute followup by saying, "Being a teacher in the system, in the trenches, all we hear is about how 'public schools are failing our kids'. It is nice to finally see that there are people who have hope in the system".

This made me think - there are thousands trying their absolute best for a pittance. What are we doing publicly that destroys what self-made morale these teachers may have?

I am interested in people's opinions on paternalism in schools. Read this...it is interesting: http://www.mocharterschools.org/pdf/Recent_Press_National/An_Appea_%20to_Authority.pdf

Why Obama?

2009-10-02T09:10:00.000-07:00

I am not in the practice of discussing my votes...but since I am a Canadian citizen and cannot vote here, I suppose it would be ok if I gave a sneak preview into my political sways. A friend asked me to explain if it was so that I would have voted for Obama - why? This is what I answered...(*note* this is not representative of my entire thought process or reasoning. I only approached two hot topics superficially...foreign policy and healthcare reform.)

Obama: Yes, I would have voted for him. Just like in any election, you vote for the better person, not because they represent me in every way, shape or form. He is smart - and it has been awhile since a really intelligent person was in office.

He is eloquent, inspiring and stands for good values. ie. wanting 1,000,000 people volunteering in the PeaceCorps and Americorps. These things encourage us to look outside ourselves and help others. He encouraged school children to work hard and
succeed inspite of their surrounding circumstances. I think our generation is extraordinarily selfish and we value ourselves by "things" and "possessions". No one ever gets married and slowly upsizes their houses and cars, for instance. Everyone bought houses that were the size, or larger, than their parents'. Our work ethic is down and we are becoming disconnected as human beings - internet, texting etc. So little changes like that, I think he was inspiring.

Policies? - Healthcare MUST change. I have had a very unique view of it actually being in the field. There is billions of dollars of waste in the current system - one of the main criticisms of any govt involvement - in the privatized system...the difference? The cost of waste gets passed to the consumer (hence the premium increase of well over inflation over the last several years) so it isn't recognized as waste. At the end of the day, there is going to be give and take in all systems - including a new one. But is the positive more than a perceived negative? I say yes. Criticism of Obama (because i think every rational person should see the weaknesses of their position or person they support) he is OVERLY bipartisan. He is feeling the pressure of a minority of people and bending his plans TOO much. This could be a problem because by the time a healthcare bill comes through, it will be so watered down and may lose its "change" goals.

Foreign policy - I too am a pacifist. Of course I believe we need a military, and they do great things. But I am NEVER in favour of a preemptive strike (Iraq); I am always in favour of acting with the world's players, not unilaterally; I am in favour of coming to the table and talking to some of our worst enemies. I could never understand Bush policy and subsequently McCain policy that they wouldn't even talk to Iran (Ahmedinejad). How can talking to someone insinuate that you believe in their policies? In fact, it gives us, the USA, a chance to sit in a civil setting and discuss our demands and expectations. It is better than public talk AT each other which solves nothing - it only increases misrepresentation and tensions. He has done a lot for the world...one reason I began to support him over Hilary was because she had become toO militaristic in her statements, like McCain. That had not worked for us the last 8 years and in fact has only engendered further distaste for the US and its policies. Diplomacy, in my view, should always be exhausted first. Nothing is solved by war - sometimes necessary - but it never ends well.

Handguns Handguns Everywhere!

2009-09-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

I was meeting a friend for lunch at a popular restaurant here in Salt Lake City. When entering the restaurant, I noticed, much to my dismay, that the fellow walking in ahead of me had a prominently displayed handgun strapped to his belt. So I did what anyone, I am certain would have done. I approached him and asked, "Excuse me sir, are you a police officer?" He turned to me (luckily he did not place his hand on his gun while doing this) and said, "No. Why?" I replied, "well, I am asking you simply because you are carrying a handgun for all to see on your belt, in a public restaurant." He announced, "IT IS MY RIGHT". I queried, "what about my right to feel safe while I eat chips and salsa?" He turned and went to his table, ironically passing two uniformed police officers who didn't even blink.
Congratulations sir. You are an intimidator, a controller and a force to be reckoned with. Do you feel oh so powerful with that strapped to your hip for all to quiver at?

One step closer?

2009-09-16T22:32:00.001-07:00

Below is another posting by guest blogger on healthcare.

As promised, Max Baucus (D-Montana), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has released a draft bill today called America’s Healthy Future Act(http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf). The bipartisan support he has been promising for months, however, has not yet materialized. No Republicans have endorsed the bill and many Democrats are also criticizing the bill.

I have been reviewing the draft bill tonight and have highlighted major provisions below. I also refer you to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis for a more thorough overview of the major tenets and their budget impact (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf).

As I have repeatedly said, the devil is in the details and unfortunately, the details are looking devilish. The bill can be divided into three major categories: regulating health insurance, expanding coverage and reducing cost/paying for the expanded coverage.

Regulating health insurance
According to the draft bill, insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Premiums can be adjusted upwards based on smoking/tobacco use, geographic location, family size and age. No other demographic or health factors can be used to set health insurance premiums. Mr. Baucus’ draft allows for large variation in premiums based on age (up to 500% increase with increasing age). The age adjustment provision is likely to be unpopular, especially among baby boomers!

Expanding coverage
Overall the CBO estimates Baucus’ plan will increase health insurance coverage from 83% to 94% of the legal non-elderly population. Notably 25 million people will remain uninsured; up to 1/3 of the remaining uninsured will be undocumented residents. The Baucus plan explicitly excludes undocumented residents from any of the provisions of the bill. For comparison, the Democratic House bills are expected to reduce the uninsured to 17 billion people.

Medicaid
Baucus calls for expanding Medicaid to all individuals making less than 133% of poverty ($14,500 per person or $29,000 per family of four). This will account for 37% ($287 billion/$774 billion over 10 years) of the cost of Baucus’ bill and is projected to decrease the uninsured by 11 million. Notably in addition to the $287 billion cost to the federal government, expanding Medicaid will also increase costs to the states due to matching requirements. This cost to the states is projected to be ~$40 billion dollars over 10 years. This is the provision that will cover the neediest of America’s working poor and is also included in the other Democratic House and Senate bills.

Personal mandate
The bill includes a personal mandate to carry health insurance. A fine of $750-$900 per person per year will be charged to individuals not carrying health insurance. An economic hardship exemption is included for those who cannot find health insurance for less than 10-13% of their income.

Health insurance exchanges and subsidies
The bill establishes state-based online health insurance exchanges, Travelocity-like sites, where people can compare and purchase health insurance. The exchanges are meant to create competition and increase transparency. It is in the exchanges that a government or public health insurance plan might compete. The Baucus bill, however, does not include a public option. Instead it creates seed funding for the establishment of regional non-profit co-op insurance plans to serve as competitors to private for-profit insurance companies. The CBO and others do not believe these co-ops will have enough market share to actually decrease cost significantly.

In the bill individuals/families with access to an employer-sponsored health insurance plan will not be able to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Those who are 1. eligible to use an exchange and 2. whose incomes are less than 400% of poverty ($43,000 per person or $88,000 per family of four) will be eligible for government subsidies to offset insurance premium costs on an exchange. The subsidies will be set so that the cost of insurance premiums range from 3% to 13% of an individual’s/family’s income. These subsidies account for the largest portion (60%, ($463 billion /$774 billion) of the bill’s cost.

Employer mandate
The Baucus bill does not include an employer mandate. Instead, if an employer’s employees use the subsidies on an exchange, that employer can be charged a “free rider” fee, capped at $400 per employee per year (this fee will be indexed to the subsidy cost). Remember, however, the average individual health insurance plan in the US costs nearly $5,000 per year. It seems $400 would be a small price to pay in exchange for not offering a $5,000 health insurance plan!

Additionally, small businesses with less than 25 employees will be eligible for tax credits up to 50% of the cost of contributions to employee health insurance premiums. This tax credit, however, will only be available for two years per business.

Reducing cost/paying for expanded coverage
Paying for the program has been Mr. Baucus’ major focus, with the hope of getting Republicans on board with a less costly bill. According to the CBO analysis, Mr. Baucus’ bill will not add to the deficit over the next 10 years.

The CBO estimates the cost of the Baucus bill at $774 billion over 10 years (compared to ~$1 trillion over 10 years for the more liberal Democratic House and Senate HELP bills). I think this is a rather optimistic estimate for the Baucus bill. Below are the ways the Baucus bill plans to pay for the costs.

Fines
Personal fines for not carrying coverage are expected to raise $20 billion over 10 years. Similarly employer “free rider” fines are expected to raise another $20-30 billion over 10 years. This accounts for 6% of the total cost of the bill.

Health insurance tax
A large share of revenue will come from an excise tax on “high-cost” health insurance plans. Earlier in the year, Mr. Baucus had been in favor of taxing all employer-based health insurance plans. When that became politically untenable, he developed an alternative plan, taxing insurance companies directly on “high-cost” health insurance plans.

Currently the “high-cost” plans are defined as >$8,000 per individual plan or >$21,000 per family plan. A 35% tax is proposed. Notably the “high-cost” plans are indexed to general inflation, not healthcare inflation. Healthcare inflation has often outpaced general inflation by 300%. This means that with each passing year the 35% tax will encroach onto relatively lower cost plans.

The goal of the tax is to pressure insurance companies into lowering costs while raising revenue. I believe it will just result in cost transfer to all insurance consumers. Further, because it is not a direct tax, it distorts normal consumer behavior in the insurance market. This excise tax will account for a large revenue source, $215 billion over ten years or 28% of the projected costs.

Fees on industry
Fees on the pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturing, health insurance and clinical laboratory industries will raise $130 billion dollars over 10 years. Without strict regulation and competition (not included in this bill), these costs will be passed directly onto the consumers, increasing healthcare costs overall.

Reimbursement changes
Finally, savings in Medicare and Medicaid are slated to save $409 billion over 10 years or 53% of the proposed costs. These savings are to come from capping home health and rehabilitation reimbursement, limiting overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans (private insurance administered Medicare plans that cost 14% more on average than government administered Medicare plans) and reducing imaging and physician reimbursement. In fact, these proposed savings are dependent on a 25% physician reimbursement cut in 2011. Capping this spending is highly unlikely…
While it is a success to finally have a draft bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, I find this bill highly disappointing. It seems to satisfy no one. The bill’s shortcomings are that inadequate industry regulation, lack of significant insurance competition and unrealistic financing. If passed, this bill will be a boon for insurance companies, serving them up an expanded market, subsidized by the government. At the same time, minimal fees on employers may incentivize dropping employer-sponsored insurance.

To adequately control cost, we either have to regulate insurance profits or introduce a large non-profit competitor that will have enough market share to actively negotiate cost. This cost negotiation, however, has to be realistic (not dependent on a 25% across the board cuts on physician reimbursement in one year).

Amendments and discussion on the bill are set for next week. Stay tuned.

2009-09-09T07:38:00.001-07:00

What to listen for in President Obama’s speech

As most of you know already, President Obama will be speaking to a joint session of Congress on Wed Sep 9 at 6pm MST. Our lawmakers have just returned to Washington after taking the month of August off to go home to their respective states. August was filled with contemptuous partisan debate over healthcare reform as evidenced by the yelling at town hall meetings and swastika painting on at least one lawmaker’s office. In his speech, Mr. Obama will attempt to re-energize lawmakers and the citizenry to support and move forward with his healthcare reform goals.

Before the August recess, three committees in the House passed similar reform bills and the Senate Health, Education, Pensions and Labor Committee passed a bill. These four bills were all crafted and passed exclusively by Democrats.

The Senate Finance Committee missed self-imposed deadlines and did not introduce a bipartisan bill before the August recess. Today, however, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) released a draft healthcare reform proposal (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-finance-committee-framework.pdf). I’ll review this in an upcoming blog as more details arrive. The bill ultimately proposed and passed out of the Senate Finance Committee is likely to herald the final healthcare reform bill passed this year (that is if a final healthcare reform bill is passed this year)!

Currently, the House and the Senate are bogged down in partisan debates about how to reform healthcare and it does not appear there are enough votes to support any current proposal. This stalemate has prompted President Obama’s speech.

Below I outline some of the key topics in the healthcare reform debate that President Obama is likely to address in his speech. As always, this reflects my knowledge and opinions and isn’t comprehensive.

Health insurance reform
This seems to be the only area of consensus currently. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree that this is a “win-win!” Any bill passed will likely include elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions and tightly restrict rescission (the process of dropping individuals from insurance once they get a costly illness).

Further, there is bipartisan support for limiting premium cost rating based on health conditions. It is likely health insurance premiums will only be able to be adjusted based on a limited set of parameters including age, geographic location, smoking status and family size. For example, insurance companies will be allowed to charge a 60 year old smoker in New York, City five times more for his/her insurance than a 20 year old non-smoker in Des Moines, Iowa but will have to charge the same rate for a 30 year old thin, healthy man in Stillwater, Oklahoma and a 30 year old obese woman with endometrial cancer in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Some argue obesity should also be included as a rating criterion, but to-date that seems unlikely.

Finally it is likely that lifetime maximums will be outlawed and out-of-pocket maximums will be capped, possibly related to income and or health savings accounts maximums.

This will be a feel-good section of the talk for Mr. Obama, touting regulation of the insurance companies to ensure more “equitable, secure” insurance coverage. The problem, of course, is that these measures due nothing to decrease cost and will likely increase cost.

Covering the uninsured
As discussed in my earlier blog, the high rate of uninsured (and underinsured) is a high-profile issue in the healthcare reform debate and one Mr. Obama is sure to address. Listen for these topics:

Expanding Medicaid
There seems to be consensus that the federal government will require and help states to expand Medicaid up to at least 133% of poverty for all legal citizens and perhaps as high as 250% of poverty for some citizens (children, pregnant women). Some states already have eligibility at or above these thresholds and they will be required to maintain their higher eligibility requirements. This is a topic Mr. Obama will spend little or no time on, as Medicaid does not “play to the masses” who are hesitant to support low-income Americans. It is, however, the plank of reform that will expand coverage to many of the neediest in America and will prove to be quite costly over time.

Personal mandates
This is a hot topic issue. Should individuals be required to carry health insurance (as they are auto insurance) or is a personal mandate an infringement on fundamental liberty? The Republicans have generally opposed personal health insurance mandates while the Democrats have been more favorable to them (with economic hardship exemptions). Most experts agree that personal mandates are necessary to reach desired insurance coverage rates and pool risk, reducing total healthcare costs.

The current Democratic bills all include personal mandates and the draft released by Senator Baucus today also includes a personal mandate with a fine for not carrying health insurance (again, an economic hardship exemption is included). All current viable proposals also include tax credits to help individuals/families with incomes up to 300% of poverty pay ($66,000 for a family of four) for health insurance premiums if they do not receive employer sponsored health insurance.

President Obama may or may not address this directly. A personal beef of mine is that personal mandates should be realized through automatic enrollment in health insurance, not after the fact fines which still do not result in health insurance coverage.

Employer mandates
Employer mandates are even more controversial than personal mandates. Again, the liberty question, is it too great of an infringement on liberty to require employers to either offer or contribute to the cost of health insurance? Most Democrats favor requiring employers to offer health insurance and instituting fines for not offering health insurance (with a small business exemption). Those fines then would be used to subsidize premiums for individuals/families. Republicans tend to be more hesitant to this idea. Some experts fear that unless employers are required to foot a significant portion of insurance costs, they will continue to drop insurance coverage as costs increase (happening currently).

Another option does not require employers to offer insurance or pay a fine for not offering insurance, but instead institutes a payroll tax that then would be used to offset premiums (via subsidies) or fund a public program.

All viable employer mandate proposals include sliding-scale fines/fees based on business size as to not unduly burden small businesses. Current bills also include tax credits to off-set the cost of health insurance for small employers.

Public option
The grand-daddy of controversy. Should there be a “public option,” a.k.a some type of public health insurance program. President Obama strongly supported this on the campaign trail but has waffled more recently on his commitment to this issue. Most progressives feel this is essential to controlling costs as it will create a non-profit competitor with a large risk pool and large market leverage in the insurance market. Republicans fear this will offer unfair competition and introduce “big-brother” government into healthcare too much (remember that the government already pays for >50% of healthcare costs in the US via the VA, Medicare, Medicaid/SCHIP, military and government employee insurance).

Mr. Obama’s words on this topic will get the most press after the speech. Will he call for a public option or will he not??? I’m not sure. He’ll probably continue to waffle because it does not appear a public option has enough votes to pass the more conservative Senate. At the same time, many Democrats in the more progressive House refuse to pass a bill that does not contain a public option.

In my estimation the more important question, which gets much less coverage, is what would the public option be? Current proposals require the public option to

1. be viable without tax-payer subsidies (that is the plan will have to be solvent based on premium income alone without tax subsidies within a set period of time, such as 3-5 years) and

2. be available to only a very limited portion of the population (those who do not have access to employer insurance and meet certain income guidelines).

Such a limited public option would have much less impact (at least in the short run) on the current market than many tout. Unfortunately, little of the details will likely be addressed in Mr. Obama’s speech.

A “compromise” to the public option dispute being proposed by some Senators is co-op insurance. These co-op plans, like a public option, would be non-profit providers of health insurance and so in theory reduce costs. The drawback to these plans, however, is that because they would be smaller local or state co-ops, they would not be able create the centralized risk pool and large market leverage that a public option would. Therefore, co-ops would have less ability to reduce cost. If Mr. Obama signals he is in favor of, or at least willing to accept, co-ops, it is a large move away from progressives’ goals.

Reducing healthcare spending
The discussion above was all about coverage expansion. The other big healthcare concern is cost. How do you pay for current healthcare and pay for coverage expansion? As always, the money trail is vital to any successful healthcare reform, so listen carefully. Americans want it all, and they want it cheap, ala Wal-Mart. I have listed specific cost topics below.

Taxing health benefits
Currently employer healthcare benefits are not taxed. This offers employees a large chunk of tax-free income and shorts Uncle Sam. Earlier in the spring and summer, taxing healthcare benefits (or at least the most expensive healthcare plans) was a popular way of financing healthcare. However, as the summer has progressed, this has fallen out of favor. Mr. Obama is unlikely to support this.

Interestingly, however, Mr. Baucus’ draft today included essentially a back-hand tax on high cost healthcare plans (tax on plans >$21,000 for family plan, average family plan ~$14,000). Rather than taxing the employee, it will levy a tax on the insurance company that offers the high-end plan. Interesting! I guess as long as the individual doesn’t feel like they have a new direct tax, they can be happy. Personally, I think healthcare would benefit from people feeling more of the cost directly, but more on that in another blog.

Taxing the rich
Think you could escape this never-ending debate, think again. The Democratic House plans include a healthcare surtax (~1-5%) on the rich (incomes above ~$200,000 per year per person, the top 3% of income earners). As you would expect, there is strong Republican opposition to this tax and it is unlikely to ever pass the Senate. I doubt, Mr. Obama, will comment on this at all.

Taxing payroll/employer fines
This was discussed above, but again, either taxing payroll or leveraging fines against employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees is a possible means of raising revenue to support healthcare reform. Unfortunately, the fines included in the current bills (~$400-$1000 per employee) are far below the cost of health insurance and therefore are unlikely to make a significant dent in the cost of expanding healthcare coverage. Further, some companies may chose to pay the fine over offering health insurance, exacerbating the number of uninsured and increasing public and individual healthcare costs.

A payroll tax option could prove more viable over time as it would likely be set as a percentage of payroll and increase annually with inflation (or healthcare costs), where a fine would likely be a flat dollar amount that may or may not automatically increase with inflation. Payroll taxes, however, are not included in the current popular Democratic plans. A payroll tax is included in the bipartisan Bennett-Wyden plan that gets little attention.

Taxing industry
As discussed above, taxpayers tend to favor taxes that they do not see directly. Taxing healthcare industry players has not been a large area of discussion, but in Senator Baucus’ draft released today he included “fees” to be levied on the pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, health insurance providers and clinical laboratories to the tune of $13 billion annually.

This proposal is likely to face strong opposition from the pharmaceutical, medical device, health insurance and laboratory industries (most of which have VERY, VERY powerful lobbying networks). Again, I think healthcare would benefit from people feeling more of the cost directly, which this financing scheme would not achieve.

Because this proposal is new to the debate, I am not sure what President Obama might say about it. It is populist, but will face corporate opposition…stay tuned.

Reimbursement
Finally attempts to control/reduce/redirect reimbursement to healthcare providers are being advocated. Policy makers believe, rightly so, that by controlling reimbursement you can control healthcare utilization and ultimately cost. All the current proposals increase primary care reimbursement and attempt to decrease what is viewed as “over utilization” in the system. For example, radiology reimbursement will be cut in the current proposals (for those in the know, increasing imaging use rate assumption from 50% to 75-90%). The current bills also include the creation of “accountable care organizations” that would financially incentivize provider networks to manage care efficiently, in many ways similar to the old school HMOs.

All proposals also call for fraud reduction with increased fines and surveillance for Medicare/Medicaid fraud.

Reimbursement reform to improve “quality, affordable” care also will be a feel good portion of the talk for Mr. Obama but will face strong doctor/industry opposition.

Another form of reimbursement reform being proposed is standardizing insurance claim processes. It is estimated that ~25% of all healthcare dollars in America are spent on administrative costs. Instituting standard, automated claims processes, if done right, should dramatically reduce administrative costs with no adverse impact on patient care.

Medical malpractice reform
Not really on the table currently, and likely to not to be mentioned by President Obama. I think this is unfortunate, as defensive medicine costs are high and likely not to decrease without some malpractice reform.

Alright, there is my two cents on what to listen for in Mr. Obama’s speech. Let me know what you think of the speech.

Is there anything wrong with American healthcare?

2009-08-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Healthcare reform is the topic d’été in America. In this post I will outline some of what is perceived to be wrong with the American healthcare system.

First, however, I’d like to thank Dana for inviting me to post to her blog. In the interest of full disclosure, I do have conflicts of interest. I am a patient, physician and American citizen who is suffering from and profiting from the current system and has much to gain and/or to lose with healthcare reform. I am not an expert, but I attempt to be an informed patient/physician/citizen.

So what is wrong? Most of the current debate focuses on the broad themes of coverage, cost and quality. In this post, I will focus on coverage and cost. I will save quality for a future post.

Let’s start with coverage. Approximately 15% of Americans are uninsured (figure 1). This equates to approximately 45 million Americans or more than the entire populations of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and Alaska combined (2008 US Census Bureau estimates). Further, the number of uninsured continues to grow. In our system, unlike other industrialized nations, most workers rely on employers for access to affordable health insurance. With this employer-based model, accessibility to insurance is rapidly decreasing with rising unemployment (figure 2). So without intervention, at least in the short term, the ranks of the uninsured will grow with the ranks of the unemployed.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Now let’s move to cost. The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation (without significant outcome improvements, but that is to be addressed in the quality post) (figure 3). Healthcare spending continues to rise quickly. Current healthcare spending represents nearly 17% of gross domestic product, up from 5% in 1960 and 12% in 1990 (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/).

Figure 3

Over the past decade while wages have increased by 34%, healthcare premiums have increased by 119%, more than eliminating any wage advancement (figure 4). In fact, >60% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 had a healthcare cause (Himmelstein et al. Am J Med. 2009 Jun 4).

Figure 4

In addition to hurting workers, healthcare costs are burdensome to American businesses. Employer contributions to healthcare costs have increased by 117% over the past decade (figure 5). A recent Rand Corp. report examined 38 industries and found an inverse-relationship between industry growth and employee healthcare coverage, not accounted for by other industry factors (Sood N et al. HSR: Health Services Research. Epub June 9 2009). The Business Roundtable (made up of CEOs of America’s largest businesses) are also calling for healthcare reform, noting American businesses pay on average $0.73 more per hour per worker for healthcare benefits than their competitors in other G-5 countries (http://www.businessroundtable.org).

Figure 5

Further, healthcare costs are burdensome on government. Over 45% of all American healthcare costs are footed by government programs (figure 6). Medicare and Medicaid/SCHIP spending will account for 21% of 2010 federal spending, more than either Social Security or defense spending (figure 7). Medicare Part A, while widely popular, is projected to be insolvent by 2017 (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf). Nearly every state in the union is also struggling with Medicaid costs.

Figure 6

Figure 7

So in summary, the ranks of the uninsured are growing and may soon reach 1 in 5 Americans. At the same time that we are losing ground in insurance coverage, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, fast out-pacing wage increases and inflation. Healthcare costs are crippling and unsustainable for workers, employers and government.

I refer you to the following websites (only a few of many) for more information on the problems facing the American healthcare system.

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org
http://www.healthreform.gov
http://www.kff.org
http://www.lewin.com
http://www.rand.org/research_areas/health/
http://www.businessroundtable.org/initiatives/health

Please check back in the coming weeks for posts on how American healthcare got here, the quality of American healthcare, proposed healthcare solutions, the cost of change, the major players, the political dimensions of healthcare reform, what you can do and more. Let the dialogue begin!

MEDICAL REFORM - RED ALERT FOR FACIST TERRORISTS DISGUISING THEMSELVES AS CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS

2009-08-13T09:33:00.000-07:00

I have been dismayed at the disregard for rational, democratic forums to discuss policy. Instead, tactics of fear and anger and inciting mob rage have been employed with the stated purpose of "stamping out the facists who want to take over the world". There have been violent images like the one here with Congressman Kratovil hanged in effigy. Really? Honestly?

While pedaling on a stationary bicycle, I was forced to watch CNN - Lou Dobbs. I was shocked when he reported "national satisfaction", "life expectancy", "national income tax percentage" and "GDP allocation to healthcare expenditure". The numbers were shocking - Canadian citizens are taxed less than USA citizens. Satisfaction of government-run healthcare systems throughout the industrialized world match or beat US satisfaction (except for Switzerland). Life expectancies of all industrialized countries reported were higher than US.

And yet, with this empirical data, further supported by 10s of millions uninsured with little or no access here in the US, government systems already in place and working with very good satisfaction (Medicare par example), the opponents of the bipartisan plan for healthcare reform state, " WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM WITH GOVERNMENT ABORTIONS"! He then went on to say, "...GOVERNMENT SPONSORED DEATH PANELS"...

He also explained that he doesn't incite the undemocratic screaming, fear-mongering, mob mentality protests but rather, "provides information of when, where and what". And then there is my favourite from my pal, Palin, who told a host of people, "my son would be dead" when discussing a system in which a government would have a role...

Look, I am a Canadian, and I can see the positives and negatives in a system as implemented there - and surprisingly, the government hasn't given anyone mind-altering drugs to enrich and sustain support...hmmm....but I am going to pass this conversation on to my friend, KaLynne. She is a physician who is more adept legislatively than I, and who has recently given a Grand Rounds on this very subject...Healthcare Reform. Look forward to her discussions here.

P.S.

Kalynne informed me this morning that in a conservative periodical, there was a claim that in Britian, people like Stephen Hawking would be dead - that he wouldn't have received any care. Brilliantly, he responded in an editorial, "I am British and have received top of the line interventions...." I guess their bed-time story of death and massacre inflicted on the people by the government was more of a tall tale?

A Handgun Will Save Me From....Them.

2009-08-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

The picture says it all...and in fact, with much trepidation I have reproduced this picture here. I too have felt that a barrel full (don't mind the pun) of handguns is the "solution" - a solution that the all-seeing eye (government, pharmaceutical companies, DOCTORS) wants to destroy so that "we the people" remain helpless victims to our tyrannical government.

I agree that every misuse of a legal, registered, rightful handgun has only been due to those individuals taking Prozac, the mind-controlling drug. Never once has it been a convenient weapon used in domestic violence, or bar fights and certainly, accidental gun deaths in homes only occur if the parent is on Prozac.

Washington and its connivers want to stamp out our rights to carry guns under our clothes and shoot people at will so they can in turn shoot us - their slaves.

It was recently reported in the newspaper that as public fear increases, so do handgun ownership and concealed weapon permits. I couldn't dream of a safer public - scared, terrified, jumpy, untrained citizens carrying weapons around our streets in higher concentrations.

I suppose that a tried and tested quote has some application in moments like these - there is nothing to fear, but fear itself - this is so true if it becomes the motivation to purchase and hide handguns.

The man who most recently blew half his foot off because his gun, which was in his front pocket, went off in a club while he was dancing. A new meaning to "footloose"?

Mainstream Child Pornography.

2009-07-30T18:33:00.001-07:00

"My Sister's Keeper" is a movie that is more than loosely based on the book with the same name written by Jodi Picoult. I have not read the book, but my mother and sister had and so we went to see the Hollywood rendition of the book (which is never as good, but that never stops us from going to the movie!).

My point: the actress, Sofia Vassilieva, playing Kate, the daughter with leukemia, steals away with her leukemia affected boyfriend and get naked together. We saw her entire naked back with these two young individuals lying naked together (14 years old in the movie).

In real-life? She is a child - by law. Her birthdate? 22 October 1992.

This is child pornography - technically.

The sick part? We all sat there and watched. Every young woman in the theater learned that sex is normal for a 14 year old. The adults learned that our society has moved towards a standard of children with breast buds being old enough to be exploited.

P.S.

My sister, who prosecutes sexual assault cases, refers to child pornography as more accurately, child abuse images. Pornography connotes a measure of consent. Children can not consent.

Gone and Forgotten?

2009-07-12T13:51:00.000-07:00

Member of the hospital board? That's important. The hands that delivered hundreds and maybe thousands of babies into the world? That's important. Recognized and awarded throughout the years for outstanding service and community building? That's important. Biggest house on the block? That's important.

And yet, the father of my friend, who was the character in that play, stood nameless in the same hospital he was a board member for. His wife had a terrible injury, and the young new doctors bustled around without a single acknowledgement of the wealth and honour and years of slaving in the name of medicine that her husband represented just a short few years prior.

A quick realization - nobody cares. The world is quick to honour and lift above and congratulate when you mean something to them - but worldly honour is as quickly forgotten as it is given.

His wife looked at him with adoration, however. So grateful that he stood there beside her in her time of need. Had he missed these opportunities throughout their life because her quiet gratitude paled in comparison to the pats on the back colleagues had so often given?

But who was there now? His children. His wife. They are the only ones to remember, in the end.

Good ol' Rural Boys.

2009-06-13T09:31:00.000-07:00

The title reflects what my mom and dad say about NHL players. It is a different make-up of stars than you will find in other professional sports. I grew outside a town, Fairview, Alberta that was composed of one large building - the rink. Fairview represents where most of the NHL hockey players found their way to a professional league getting paid millions. I might also add that the NHL has salary caps that aren't found in other leagues. But this is what hit me last night...

The Pittsburg Penguins, although underdogs, beat the Detroit Red Wings in 7 games. Mario Lemieux, an icon in his sport, and contemporary to Wayne Gretzky, is part-owner and President of the Penguins. During the celebration, he was interviewed by Pierre McGuire. Pierre asked, "so is Syd going to keep living with you?" For those who don't know hockey, Syd Crosby is a 21 year old phenomenon. I saw him once put the puck between his legs, back to his stick and score a goal, all while skating at fast speeds with a defender on him. It turns out, that for his four years in the NHL, he has been living with Mario and his family! Mario said, "he's 21. What is he going to do? Buy a big house and live in it all

alone? What he needs is a strong structure - a family. He has a place in my family. He can live with us as long as he wants".

WHAT?????? Have you ever heard of a 21 year old NBA player making millions of dollars, living with a family because that is a clean, structured, environment? - imagine the difference if they did?

The NHL is what is right with the world. I'm proud to be a Canadian.

Marriage 'Rites" vs. 'Rights"

2009-06-10T07:19:00.000-07:00

I have been seriously delinquent in my entries...but there has been so much to think about. I did promise many of you that I would comment on Prop 8. Apropos to a demonstration here in Utah consequent to California's recent supreme court ruling, I thought the issue could use one more opinion - mine.

On May 6, the governor of Maine, John Bladacci, commented while signing a same-sex marriage bill into law, "I don't personally believe in gay marriage, but do believe in equal protection under the Constitution". This seems like the quintessential politician jabber - I do AND I don't. But really, he makes a good point that I want to elaborate on more fully

Historically, women often kept their last names when they were married and in fact, in England, when their husbands were at war or on the sea, the women and her children would move back with her father and mother and she would take on her maiden name again while living at that residence. It wasn't until land distribution and ownership issue and inheritance patterns became a governmental nightmare in the early history of the US, that governments picked marriage as the recognized, legal entity which would tie land to one family,thus combining marriage with civil rights.

However, the marriage 'rite' had been a religious 'ceremony of God' and religion has always been the grantor of this rite. Thus defining - the marriage rite. So it seems to me, that claims from both sides of the aisle (excuse the pun) seem to be somewhat misplaced and with such a morally dichotamous issue, it is easy to do so.

Same-sex marriage advocates would claim that it is their 'right' to be married. Same-sex marriage opposers would claim that marriage is defined only as a union between one man and one woman. And I would say that same-sex unions must imperatively be granted a protection of civil rights - tax benefits, power of attorney protections, healthcare decision making powers etc. - all of which are recognized rights under the Constitutional law for couples who demonstrate committment to one another. (note: we can't say rights for those married since civil unions have been recognized for more than two decades). But I don't believe that anyone has the right to the marriage rite.

In Canada, when this question was put before the Supreme Court, there were three issues put before the court, two of which asked the question related to government instituted rights as discussed above and the third would have required any clergy or Canada's justice of the peace equivalent to preform same-sex unions. This was rightly turned down, while the two civil right questions were rightly passed.

In short, people demonstrating committment to one another, whatever way that may be, and no matter what your religious or non-religious conscience dictate, require civil protections and equality under the law. Equivalently, anyone who does not want to participate in those marriages require civil protections and equality under the law.

The marriage RITE is not a civil right. The governmental benefits related to marriage are civil RIGHTS. So in the eyes of the government, unions of all kinds, must be recognized equally. In the eyes of religion, the same requirement is not obligatory. If this were not so, this would not be a democracy.

Upcoming...

2008-12-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone. I have been lame in my upkeep of my political thoughts - upcoming in 4 days - a discussion of prop 8.

Women In Medicine.

2008-08-18T19:09:00.000-07:00

I am in trauma surgery right now. We were repairing the effects of a shotgun to the belly of a young gentleman...my attending surgeon, my resident, my intern and I are all women. The hands of these skilled surgeons was something to watch. The level of competence was admirable and the outcomes were impeccable.

After the surgery, we were congregated and our casual conversation lead us to dating. All of us single, all of us strong, capable, beautiful women. It was amazing to hear them lament about the same things I have often come across. Two of them said that they now tell men that they meet that they "work in healthcare" without telling anyone that they are doctors...why is it that many men look at women like us, and think that we do not want, need or can contribute to a relationship? That somehow our successes diminish them as men?

One Year To Live.

2008-07-23T15:37:00.000-07:00

A 62 year old woman has had 25 years of 3 tumblers of whiskey every night and now she is going to die. We told her that women with metastatic breast cancer had a longer survival prognosis than she did. 1-2 years left. One of her daughters steamed in the corner, angry at her mother for all those days, in spite of pleading, drinking herself to death. The other daughter, stood to my other side numbed at the news. She had revealed to me the day before that she knew this was coming. All those nights, during all those years, she would receive drunken phone calls from her mother. But now...now the expected outcome was a reality, and I had to tell the family that her liver was terribly damaged, and would not

and could not get better.

I am Voting Republican.

2008-06-17T08:30:00.001-07:00

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

Suicide Risk

2008-06-13T13:48:00.000-07:00

I have my Step I Board Exam tomorrow. I went today, to check out the testing site. It is on the 4th floor of a building with a beautiful atrium. The problem? I will be a suicide risk tomorrow...way too much opportunity.

A Liberal God?

2008-06-08T21:30:00.000-07:00

I'm Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints...The man who we believe translated ancient records into what we know today as the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and who also, as a 14 year old boy saw and talked with God the Father and Jesus Christ - said of God;

“our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive".

I know this must be true, because sometimes I am ridiculous in the eyes of observers, and my decisions may not make rational sense to some, but God somehow seems to endorse those same decisions that cause others to be incredulous. That is the kind of liberality I hope to achieve someday.

Medicine Has Made Me Guttural

2008-06-03T15:10:00.000-07:00

Benzodiazepines and Barbituates have very similar mechanisms as drugs - even, arguably, similar uses...but there is one difference in the mechanisms of the two drugs.

Benzodiazepines - Increase FREQUENCY of Chloride channel openings.

Barbituates - Increase DURATION of Chloride channel openings.

How can one stressed out, over-extended medical student be expected to remember a seemingly minute detail (one might even argue it to be minutia)? It really is quite simple: make it as dirty as possible!

Ben likes increased frequency...

Barb likes increased duration...

let me know if you don't get it.

A WOMAN FIGHTS BACK.

2008-05-27T07:02:00.000-07:00

I read this in Reuters today - i am not sure if this is a victory or not - but I often wonder as I am getting whistled at and crude things yelled at me, two things. 1) Why do men think they can do that to women? and 2)What do they expect the outcome of their hollering to be?

I have never stripped, but i have approached groups of men yelling and whistling and simply inquired, "were you trying to get my attention? Do you have something to say to me?" The response is usual diverting eyes and discomfort - I think this perhaps is the phenomenon of "mob mentality". I approach them, forcing individuals to be identified, and the strength of their actions is instantly diminished....hmmm....

Woman strips after wolf whistle
Thu May 22, 2008 12:56am BST

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Road workers in a small New Zealand town got their wish granted when a woman stripped saying she was fed up with their wolf-whistles.
The Israeli tourist was about to use an ATM in the main street of Kerikeri, in the far north of the country, when the men whistled, the New Zealand Press Association reported.
She calmly stripped off, used the cash machine, before getting dressed and walking away.
The woman told police she didn't take too kindly to the whistling from the men repairing the road.
"She said she had thought 'bugger them, I'll show them what I've got'," Police Sergeant Peter Masters told NZPA.
"She gave the explanation that she had been ... pestered by New Zealand men. She's not an unattractive looking lady," Masters said.
"She was taken back to the police station and spoken to and told that was inappropriate in New Zealand."
(Reporting by Adrian Bathgate; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

Free Market Rules!!!...or maybe when it is just convenient?

2008-05-22T13:45:00.000-07:00

Price of Oil per Barrel today, at the level of the producer from the respective reserves:

$19 - Accessible fields
$20-60 - Shallow water drilling
$60 - Deep water drilling
$30-50 - Shale
$50-60 - Oil sands

Price of Oil per Barrel today, selling on the market
$135.50

*Please note discrepancy, and try, just try to do the math in your head re: oil co. profits

As an environmentalist, I am not sad that the price of oil is going up. But what I am sickened by, is that the understanding of economics is nil amongst consumers at large, and we are buying into the game...what game? Being a University of Chicago alum, I learned the simple principles of supply and demand. There are still too many of us buying gas...and the companies, perhaps by collusion although one can not tell because Bush won't set up an investigatory committee, are incrementally raising the prices. Why did gas spike today? simply because Memorial Day is coming up and the gas companies count on people driving their SUVs and boats IN SPITE of the raised prices; and they won't be disappointed. There is only one thing that will lower prices. STOP DRIVING. It really is simple economics...have the prices raised as high as possible so as to milk the consumer without exhausting them balancing the lost consumer who was cost-prohibited (like me) with the increased revenues from the raised prices.

Airlines are jumping on board. American Airlines just announced that they will charge $15 for the first bag checked. (i have a personal complaint for this one...if they would let me bring my facewash in my carry-on, i would never check baggage)...$25 for the second bag and $100 for a third bag. A guy on the news said that he saw these charges as reasonable - and in fact stated, "they should be charging me extra because I am fat". I don't disagree.

America as a nation is calling for a "gas tax holiday" and "government subsidy"...why is it that we spit on government intervention in important areas (such as healthcare), but cry uncle when we want to irresponsibly and frivolously use our income? (housing mortgage bail-outs included)

The consumers are in control of these decisions - it is just easier to complain, less easy to take the train.

What do you think?

Hate on The Internet...

2008-05-12T22:06:00.000-07:00

Watch this and tell me what you think - I think you all will know what I am thinking...and if you don't know me very well, read some of my earlier posts.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

My verdict for the dirty psychiatrist...

2008-05-06T08:10:00.000-07:00

The verdict in my opinion:: If I were sitting on the Board with this case, there are several issues that I think must be considered to encourage, fairness to both the complainant and the defendant.
First, the physician explained his relationship with his patient as a normal relationship in which two people who enjoyed each other’s companionship and found each other attractive decided to pursue it. Although both were married and I think infidelity is abhorrent, it is not illegal. The physician claims that retrospectively, he could identify the error in his ways, and that perhaps he acted with limited foresight as the effects of breaking it off with his patient would culminate into a suicide attempt. He asked for mercy in the decision and another chance to behave better.
With this in mind however, there is a precedence that can not be ignored. Being unfamiliar with the laws in Utah, the fact that he has two prior accusations for similar behaviour as well as current complaints still pending, it speaks to his character and his inability to maintain a safe environment for his patients. Patients come to doctors seeking care for physical and mental abnormalities. They trust us as physicians with their bodies...they can not come to the doctor's office fearing that they are in the pool of sexual options by their treating physician.

There are boundaries that require no relationships between physicians and patients for a reason. There is an imbalance of perceived position and power even in an outpatient setting. This imbalance is further exacerbated by the circumstance of this particular patient. She is being treated for chronic, severe depression, having personal marital issues both of which render her even more vulnerable. The psychiatrist took advantage of the weak state of his patient and preyed upon her vulnerabilities. His argument related to their relationship being a legitimate, consensual relationship rather than the exploitive one that he is accused of, loses validity because when asked by his patient to leave his wife, he had no intention to do so and ended the relationship at that time. Furthermore, the patient, although she remained in the relationship ‘willingly’, once it ended was identified as having an increased seriousness of her depression as well as an attempted suicide. Her suit was not brought forward until her current provider helped her identify that the actions of her psychiatrist were inappropriate.

Due to his position as psychiatrist, his precedent actions that speak to his character and current accusation, I would judge him to be entirely culpable. He put this particular patient at risk to serve his own sexual needs as well as other possible victims as those cases are still pending. He should lose his privilege and license to practice medicine.

~~last note...my heart does go out to single, small town physicians who treat their entire towns...how are they supposed to find a spouse in that setting?

Two Consenting Adults?...or Just Plain Unethical Behaviour?

2008-05-02T12:29:00.001-07:00

Please read the following case and let me know what your thoughts are...of course I have my own!

Case

Patient: 32-year-old Caucasian female

Problem/Chief Complaint: Depression/Alleged Sexual Abuse by her physician

History of present illness: This patient, who is the primary complainant in this case, presents the following testimony. She has suffered from depression for many years, beginning as a teenager. She has seen many providers for care over the years, including psychologists and psychiatrists. Three years ago, her family (husband and three children) moved to Utah so her husband could accept a promotion with his company. At the time of the move, the patient was under a psychiatrist's care and was taking anti-depressant medication. She is originally from Utah and was glad to be returning "home." She and her husband had also discussed filing for divorce, but agreed to wait until the family was resettled in Utah. They hoped that proximity to her family and friends would help her condition. She was told to establish care with a new psychiatrist after the move. She selected a new psychiatrist from the list provided by her husband's insurance company. That doctor is the defendant in this case.

The patient states that she and her new psychiatrist seemed to get along well. She states that she was very fond of him and appreciated his concern and assistance. After six months of therapy, she stated the psychiatrist expressed his own attraction to her. She states that her psychiatrist would often tell her about his own personal problems, including marital problems. After one difficult session, she stated that the psychiatrist gave her a big hug and then began kissing her. She stated that she offered a little resistance, but because of her attraction to him and his expressions of affection for her, that she allowed his advances. Over the next few months, their relationship progressed to include sexual intimacy and "secret" dinners at distant restaurants. The patient began pushing the psychiatrist to advise her about getting a divorce, whether he was going to get a divorce, and whether they could be married. Abruptly, after their last session (over a year ago), the psychiatrist told her that he couldn't see her any more and that he was going to stay with his wife. That night she attempted suicide and was admitted to a psychiatric institution for care. She told no one about this relationship until six months ago, when she admitted it to her new psychiatrist - who recommended that she report it to the Physician's Licensing Board. Coincidentally, the Board was already investigating two similar complaints about this physician.

The attorney for the State presents evidence from the new psychiatrist noting the suicide attempt and serious worsening of the patient's chronic depression, secondary to the termination of her affair with the prior physician. He also notes that the patient's husband is now seeking a divorce and child custody on grounds of marital infidelity. He adds that this was the fourth complaint filed against this doctor. The first two, from several years ago, were dropped because the complainant refused to testify. The other two investigations are proceeding, but have been delayed by the privacy concerns of those patients.

The psychiatrist, through questioning by his attorney, explains that he was truly attracted to this patient. He stated that he was having marital difficulty and was considering a divorce; therefore, he saw no problem in pursuing a relationship with someone to whom he was attracted. He also felt sure that her feelings were mutual and that their relationship was fully consensual. He admitted that he kept the relationship from his wife ("who wouldn't"), but when she found out and threatened divorce, he broke it off. He stated that he never imagined that it would be detrimental to this patient. At this hearing he admits that his judgment might have been somewhat impaired and that, for the most part, doctors shouldn't have intimate relationships with their patients. He hopes that the Board will understand and forgive this limited lapse of his judgment. His attorney adds that the Board cannot consider any other "unproven allegations" against his client when making their decision.

PLAN:
Disposition: This case of alleged unprofessional conduct is turned over to the Board for their decision. Options include dismissal or acquittal, which would end the civil case, or finding of fault. If fault is concluded, then the Board must recommend disciplinary action ranging from a verbal censure, to probation (with or without conditions), or to revocation of his license to practice medicine.

Coercion In The Name Of Freedom - Immigration Part 3 of 3

2008-04-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

Today on the news I saw a report re: the increasing numbers of convicted felons enlisting and serving in the army. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/21/military.waivers/) The Pentagon's statistics showed "that Army allowed 106 convicted burglars to enlist in 2007, up from 36 the year before. It also granted waivers to 43 recruits convicted of aggravated assault that year, up from 33 a year before; and to 130 people convicted of possession of drugs other than marijuana, a rise from 71 in 2006." That was interesting - but not surprising. No one can kill a terrorist like someone trained to use a gun - even if that training was in the corner Walgreens store. I mean, the store clerk was from Pakistan...

But more alarming was the Executive Order signed by President Bush on July 3, 2002, that provided for the “expedited naturalization for aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States during the period of the war against terrorists of global reach.” Under this order, any noncitizen in the military can apply for expedited citizenship on his first day of active duty. Not only is this order still in effect, but it has been codified in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2006, that authorizes the enlistment of (1) nationals of the United States; (2) aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card); (3) residents of several former U.S. territories; and (4) any other person “if the Secretary of Defense determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.”

High School recruiters promise green cards for latino kids and their families...in the current political climate as it is surrounding immigration this seems like a pretty sweet deal. In medical research there are arduous limitations and oversight regarding reimbursement rules offered to potential research participants. The reimbursement can not be considered large enough to seem coercive. If it is, medical ethics views this as disaffection from true, informed consent. This behaviour is prohibited.

Interestingly, the American military doesn't seem to be a member of the community who uses ethics to guide their policies and recruitment actions. I mean, they are just dealing with the dregs of society - the illegal immigrant...these people should be grateful for the chance to die for no reason...oh I mean, for a green card.

The Latterday Scarlet Letter

2008-04-17T16:11:00.000-07:00

Abortion is perhaps the most emotionally charged and polarizing social issues facing our country. (*some would argue that gay marriage is close behind - but it lacks the history) I attended a session yesterday lead by one of only three providers in Utah that preform abortions. He proposed that there were some universal truths related to abortion in the US:

1) It is legal - of course there are caveats and limitations...but legal nonetheless

2) It is safe - contrary to some propaganda, those who have abortions have no increased incidence of infertility, no damage that prohibits future conceptions and no long-term physical sequelae associated to the termination.

3) It requires a pregnant woman - I suggested this one and when I initially raised this point in the discussion I first said, "abortion requires a woman and a fetus". He responded, "define fetus". Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo. With this information I then changed it to, "abortion requires a woman and a group of differentiating cells" to which he clarified further and called it a pregnant woman. Pregnancy: a fertilized egg that has implanted. I conceded.

4) No one ever WANTS one: An abortion that is. Someone argued this, using as an example the women who choose to use abortions as their primary method of birth control. The physician argued that among all the patients that he has treated, even repeat visitors, not one has come to him without heavily weighing her options. He said again, "no one ever wants one".

5) Abortions are common: Of all the developed countries, where do you think that US falls for number of abortions per year? That is right - the US has the number one abortion rate of all developed countries. There are 1.4 MILLION abortions every year in this country. 40% of the world's population live in a country where abortions are legal and I have experienced first hand treating women post-abortion in countries that have not legalized abortions. (believe me, that is a much worse plight) Abortions are common - more common than breast cancer. (*In 2007, an estimated 178,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed among women, as well as an estimated 62,030 additional cases of in situ breast cancer - a pittance compared to abortions)

6)Abortions are PREVENTABLE: This is the point that I found most interesting. This physician that preforms abortions was adamant that more must be done to PREVENT abortions from even having to be done. How? By prevention of unplanned pregnancies. 50% of all pregnancies in the US each year are unplanned. There is a percentage of unplanned pregnancies that can be reasonably, although inconvenient, dealt with, but then there are those which can not. If we more aggresively prevented unwanted pregnancies, such as other developed countries who have a much lower abortion prevalance, perhaps abortions would be rare events rather than "common".

This brings up interesting questions. Without any empirical evidence, in fact strong empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, a large, politically powerful segment of society believe that contraception availability is linked to promiscuity. I think this perhaps exposes why we do not have a "walk for the cure" for abortion...because it is related to sex. 1.4 million vs. 220,000???

Here is my thought, and please weigh in on the matter - promiscuity, in many cultures is judged more heavily upon the woman...and has been throughout time. Pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy such as in a teenage girl, is a sign that she has been having sex. That pregnant belly sticks out like a scarlet letter. I have heard some either say outloud or with insinuated sentiment, "that baby is her punishment for having sex. She made the choice, she has to deal with the consequences". I won't disagree with consequence, but that runs far deeper than physical manifestations of "sin". Nathaniel Hawthorne captured the hell of secret sin illustrating the suffering of Arthur Dimmesdale despite Hester Prynne bearing the physical "scarlet letter" her whole life.

So my question is this - why is it that we don't fight to protect women from unwanted pregnancies? Is it because she is a girl having sex and she should have to pay for her sin? HPV is another example - boys are the assymptomatic vector. Girls get the cancer. Why is it that we don't fight to ensure every girl (and boy for that matter) in the country gets the Gardasil vaccine to protect her from cervical cancer? What if boys were getting penile cancer? Would that make a subconcious difference in policy?

The 'God Complex' is over analyzed...

2008-03-30T17:50:00.001-07:00

I will admit - I want to be a surgeon. The thought of seeing people on a regular basis, with regular illnesses, with regular amounts of chronic disease (which in the US is actually quite high) makes me want to run the other way with my head ducked due to enemy fire - oh wait, that happened to another blonde...or did it...or didn't it?

This topic comes up simply because I felt like it was time to update my blog profile - so I was looking for the listing - Medicine - under the scroll line designated as 'Occupation'. Is it so unreasonable to think that my chosen profession would be listed? I didn't ask for it to be listed first, just listed...but it is no where to be found. Are doctors less important than the pocket-protecting 'Accountants'? They were listed. Do doctors not remove the bullets from the co-pilots' chest that was accidentally discharged from a firearm, that a pilot, a member of 'Transportation' admitted to? They were listed. Can we not at least get a mention after 'Lawyer' to which we are in great debt to - if proven guilty - as physicians? They are listed. And most importantly, do we not treat day after day the populations of people congesting their hearts with greasy delights at 'Restaurants' everyday? They were listed.

Is it considered a God-Complex to seek a place on the Occupations list? Simply because my hands will be the saviour of thousands...is that so God-like?

Why I pay 10's of thousands in tuition....

2008-03-26T16:58:00.000-07:00

What I learned in Medical School today....

The defnition of an alcoholic? Someone who drinks more than his doctor.

Words of Wisdom...

2008-03-26T16:49:00.000-07:00

In our discussion re: obesity in class today, we were discussing both viable, non viable and "under the table" ways of treating this epidemic. The doctor mentioned that nothing works better than amphetamines (ie. meth) - he commented, "unfortunately they have some side effects. You take an amphetamine to lose some weight and next thing you know, you are running down the street in a wife beater, carrying a stolen television while your apprehension is being taped for the next season of COPS." And this was the best sarcasm i have heard in a long time....he continued, "ah yes, COPS. Now that is a good show. Watching COPS is like keeping your finger on the pulse of America".

Gun Control Rebuttal by Dwight from "The Office".

2008-03-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

I was watching The Office today - I recommend it to all - and was surprised to have a rebuttal to my views on gun control by Dwight.

He stated, "I keep various weaponries strategically placed around the office...People say, 'Oh, it's dangerous to keep weapons in the home or in the workplace', but I say it is better to be hurt by someone you know, accidentally, than by a stranger, on purpose".

My viewpoints have been enriched...thank you Dwight.

What Feminists Can Learn From the “Star Belly Sneetches”

2008-03-09T16:52:00.001-07:00

I was sitting in a room full of engaging, accomplished men and women who would, when asked by perfect strangers, declare their feminist convictions. I felt at home in this setting as I too align myself with feminist ideologies (See the first entry on my blog which defines feminism from where I sit) We were learning about my new friend Leah’s project called “Maternicity”. It was a phenomenal portrayal of motherhood – as experienced both pre and post partum. As an aspiring OB/Gyn it furthered feelings of personal satisfaction by participating in a discussion examining, through art, the paradoxical coupling of euphoria and despair that accompanies experiences of a primigravida woman. One of the women sitting in the living room expressed her firm belief in what she called, “natural” child birth. The women in the room nodded their heads with apparent approval and passion over the matter. Here enters the lessons learned from Dr. Seuss’ Star-bellied Sneetches.

Approximately 7 years ago, feminists near and far decided that “natural” child birth was the superior means of bringing life into the world. The men and women sitting in the room with me that night agreed. This determination of the superiority of “natural” child birth was an apparent response to the feminist movement of the early and mid-80’s. A movement that preferred bra burning, man-bashing and finding alternative names for the male-o-centric identifiers such as wo-man, per-son and so forth, all the while accusing motherhood as yet another means for men to control women and cause them undue pain and unilateral sacrifice and consequently that mothers were oppressed and should find their true worth and identity anywhere but in cage called “the home”. Unlike feminists from the 80’s, many of us realize now what the foundational feminist movement already knew; that is motherhood and feminism are not mutually exclusive but rather beautifully compatible. So what has changed?

Sitting among my friends was a bit illustrative of the direction that feminism has turned – woman against woman. No longer are we fighting the oppression accepted and formulated by traditions built upon Biblical misunderstandings; beginning from the apple and the first woman and the consequent weakness, sin and implied roles burdening the shoulders of her daughters through the generations. Men no longer need oppress but simply reap the benefits implicit in our self-destruction. We as women compare, criticize, judge against women who have a nanny, women who don’t have any children, women who feed their kids sugar cereal, women who are prettier, smarter, funnier or look better in black, women who stay in the home, women who… (*put your life choice here and it would unfortunately apply).

“Natural” childbirth has become a platform in which superiority is dealt amongst feminist. Does it follow that a woman who chooses to have a child “naturally” somehow is stronger, more powerful, filled with more resolve and consequently more dedicated than a woman who chooses to have an epidural? That a greater bond is felt between man and woman in this case because of her screams and “expanded” efforts? That a woman who survives the trauma will consequently be more tied to that child’s welfare? These things may be of great importance to that woman who chooses not to have an epidural, and the beauty of the feminist movement is that she can choose! But the key is: why have women decided that epidurals dismiss the strength and miracle of the experience for that woman? The point is once again, not WHAT the outcome of choice is but rather that she could CHOOSE.

I hesitated to use my friends to illustrate my point. Our discussion that night was merely a sample of the broadened effort women have made against women all in the name of feminism. Freedom to choose for one’s self and having freedom to implement her choices make women equal. This is the triumph of our gender.

If we are not careful, our reckless judgments of our sisters will cause self-destruction much like the Star Belly Sneetches. Arbitrary measures of empowerment decided by some women with “stars” are placed against women without “stars”,

"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."

This continues until the Sneetches are penniless. In the end, the Sneetches learn that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends. This is the essential lesson feminists can learn from the Sneetches.

Gun Control Propaganda - my response.

2008-02-18T06:58:00.000-08:00

This will be the first of many I am sure. I first give you the "email of persuasion" sent to me followed by my response...oh the NRA - a pool of propaganda.

The email read:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,about 20 million dissidents, unable todefend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.------------------------------In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 millionArmenians, unable to defendthemselves, were rounded up and exterminated.------------------------------Germany establ ished gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a totalOf 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves wererounded up and exterminated.------------------------------China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 millionpolitical dissidents, unable todefend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.------------------------------Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000Mayan Indians, unable todefend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.------------------------------Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000Christians, unable to defendthemselves, were rounded up and exterminated.------------------------------Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one millioneducated' people, unable todefend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.-----------------------------Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Centurybecause of gun control: 56million. ------------------------------It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced bynew law to surrender640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, aprogram costing Australiataxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are nowin:Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percentAustralia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percentAustralia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) Inthe state of Victoriaalone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that whilethe law-abiding citizensturned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess theirguns! While figures over the previous25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, thishas changed drastically upward inthe past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their preyis unarmed. There has also been adramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australianpoliticians are at a loss to explain howpublic safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expensewas expended in successfullyridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and theother historical facts above prove it. Youwon't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politiciansdisseminating this information. Guns in the handsof honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control lawsadversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.Take note my fellow Americans, before it's to o late! The next timesomeone talks in favor of gun control, pleaseremind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'.Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII theJapanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

My response:
This is propaganda full of fear-mongering, unsubstantiated claims - easy to make such claims like this and others listed in the piece you sent me because it rouses emotions rather than empirical, evidence based policy. Emotions of fear and powerlessness are used to destroy rationality and encourage docility in "regular citizens". Look carefully at the syntax. Words like, "prey" create fear. This fear stir images of an unrestrained anarchy one finds in the wild, not societies with rational beings and laws. No where is mentioned in that piece that America has the highest murder rate in the world by double figure percentiles. No where in the piece does it mention the ratio of "accidental" gun deaths far exceeds the "save lives and property" outcomes. (again, where is the empirical support behind that statement they made?) "During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans
were ARMED! " This is the grossest propaganda of them all and it is worth noting that it is the last statement made. A paragraph of fear inducing statements are developed increasing the helplessness and powerlessness of the reader finally bringing the reader to a climax of "how can I escape these awful, evil people who are out to destroy me?" The answer is given - just as we did with those evil "japs" who murdered our unsuspecting soldiers - we as citizens become "ARMED" (notice the capitalization). We become "subjects not citizens" when we loose our ability to reason. Look more closely at the history lessons from each of the examples given. The intellectuals were those who were terminated in societies such as in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge - not because they intellectually would know where to find guns, but because they would not accept the principles and propaganda perpetuated by the demanding group. Descent is power - not guns.

dana.

2008-02-13T06:44:00.000-08:00

Gustav Klimt is one of my favourite painters. He had an extraordinary talent of capturing the human state simply using oil paint.

This first painting is the Kiss. It has been said of this painting, "The Kiss is a fascinating icon of the loss of self that lovers experience."

This second painting is the most moving one for me. It is called The Embrace. It has been said, "There is no actual kiss, but a tender embrace which the woman and the man represent part of a whole".

The irony of it all....

2008-02-01T16:18:00.000-08:00

The title of this blog post is one that must be used just at the right moment...there are so many classic ironies, but this one may meet the criteria.

Exciting news:

It was announced that oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company -- $39.5 billion. Not only that, but the 2006 profit topped the previous record of $36.13 billion which Exxon set in 2005. Oh, and we can't forget that even as other companies post record lows, Royal Dutch Shell PLC -- Europe's largest oil company -- announced on Thursday that their Q4 earnings have grown 60 percent.

In contrast:

It was also announced today that the economy is weakening and jobs declined by 17000 in January. Foreclosures reach record high and lenders report a sharp rise in foreclosures along with the highest level ever of homeowners seriously late in payments. More people can not afford health insurance. We are depending on Asia and the Middle East to support our major investment banks monetarily. and on and on and on...

Irony:

I, a consumer, am facing economic uncertainty, decreasing job opportunities and declining income. I, a consumer, am spending a higher percentage of my dwindling spending power on increasing fuel prices. They, fuel providers, are bringing in record profits. Ironic.

"You Don't LOOK Like An Immigrant" - Immigration Part 2 of 3

2008-01-19T05:19:00.000-08:00

In my piece on immigration part 1, I tried to elucidate the circumstances in which I entered the United States as an immigrant and consequently, the extreme difficulty to do so in spite of my privilege, wealth and education. I revealed that my well meaning friends, after reminding them that my family represented one of “those immigrants”, made the profoundly telling comment, “well…you don’t LOOK like an immigrant”. I have also been “consoled” by friends, acquaintances and strangers that I am not the immigration concern, “because…well…because you are different”.
Returning to present time, there is great uneasiness amongst the candidates from both parties regarding the complex question of immigration. What are the sentiments of the vast American public that provoke the candidates’ cautious approach? As I list some of the more popular rhetoric, I will compare myself to the top three concerns regarding immigrants, because I am one –both an immigrant and a concern- whether I am blond or not, and then make a final decision about the validity of my friends’ comment (and my father consequently has heard the same and similar sentiments).

1) Public Opinion states: American culture, identity and practices are at risk and in some parts of the country, “America” can no longer even be identified.
Dana (an immigrant who doesn’t look like an immigrant-whatever that means) states: I bring with me ideas of a more socialist atmosphere with higher taxes to support universal healthcare. I often speak of anti-imperialism and of the egocentricity of the US. I help my neighbours, and as you can see, I spell my words with the letter “u”. I believe that we should travel to Cuba if we want to. I didn’t say the pledge of allegiance when asked to by a teacher. I eat French fries (and I have always, without reprieve, called them FRENCH fries) with gravy and ketchup. I call wheat bread brown bread. I believe military should aid in peace keeping, not militaristic rule. I love hockey…more than baseball. I think Hershey’s chocolate sucks. I have a Canadian flag on my bag, and walk brazenly through the streets of Salt Lake City. I call a garbage disposal, a garbarator. When I talk about things with an “a” in it I pronounce it “fleg” or “grocery beg”, and pasta and drama I pronounce with a short “a” sound rather than pawsta or drawma. I say foyer like the French say it. I call a winter hat a toque. My favorite colours - oh, there I go again with the “u” - are just red and white, no blue. I never watched Mr. Robinson…or is it Mr. Rogers?

2) Public Opinion states: American security is compromised when immigrants come across the border.
Dana states: I came across illegally. I had a nice car, a nice smile, and very little accent eh. Little did the border security realize that I would come across and whisper words of uprising and revolution. My platform? “NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED”.

3) Public Opinion states: Immigrants are taking American jobs away from Americans.
Dana states: I have worked since I came here. I took babysitting jobs away from innocent, American, neighbourhood, teenage girls. I took away the right of an American to be a first-hand sorter at a thrift shop…because every American wants the choice to sift garbage for something salvageable. I stole jobs left and right through college from home-grown Americans and worse yet? I took a spot in an American medical school away from an American.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate American or Americans...but I am Canadian, and I am proud of that, and bring my culture with me and am grateful for my time here. Nevertheless, it seems that I do fit into the seditious role that so commonly is uttered amongst the “real” Americans referencing immigrants. I return to the comment, “because…well…because you are different”. Am I? or am I accepted because I am not different?

I would argue that IF immigration fears and unease were truly represented by the 3 concerns listed above, then I too would be hated and alarming. And yet, I am not. My experience has been far different then a desperate mother being packed in between a car door and the siding in 120 degree heat for an opportunity to provide for her family. What is different? That I am blond? English speaking? Rich? Or is it just because I am white. The telling comment, “you don’t LOOK like an immigrant” reveals what I consider the primary concern driving immigration policy trepidation. It must be race at the core that stirs anger and fears. Otherwise it would naturally follow, that I too would be fulfilling each concern as illustrated above. So how does a politician say to his or her voters, you are racist. He or she can not, so everyone has decided to dance the salsa around the core issue of immigration.

"Just So You Know, You're Hugging An Immigrant" Part 1 of 3

2008-01-01T17:35:00.000-08:00

VS.

I can't tell you how I got into this country...it is after all a public blog. I immigrated in 1993. It took me over 5 years, over $10,000, and a lawyer just to get my green card. This allows me to work in the United States. In fact, the only things I am barred from participating in are 1) jury duty - like that hurts 2) voting - i merely persuade people around me to vote as I would and 3) serving in public office (see #2).

Tom Tancredo's (a Republican presidential candidate) plan for immigration is in line with his isolationist attitude. He plans to build a wall on the border of Mexico and the US. This is reminiscent of Pat Buchanan's run for the Republican spot. One of his campaign managers, Karen Johnson, a radical, right wing Arizona congresswoman touted Mr. Buchanan as the hope for the future; the answer to Arizona's and America's immigrant travails. During this same time my immigrant family was living in Arizona on my father's visa - my mom and I kept from working legally. (I did what I could for under the table cash...don't tell). I won a "Junior of the Year" award in Arizona which alloted a full ride scholarship to the UofArizona; it was to be awarded to me during a session of Congress. The story continues, and so does the sweet irony. Karen Johnson was presenting the award to me...

Before I finish the poor immigrant's success story, let me take you back to Arizona at that time.

1) Chandler, Arizona had passed a law that the police could ask at will for individuals to provide proof of either a birth certificate or immigrant status (ie. visa or green card). I was never asked...in fact, no white person was ever asked for that matter. (This was quickly overturned by human rights activists).

2) Pat Buchanan's immigration platform not only included plans for the physical barrier on the border, but also would require all immigrants without a current green card to be deported.

3) Hatred was building as people whispered over their fajita and burrito meals that, "nothing good comes from Mexico"...

4)My classmates, sons and daughters of a very right wing organization, regurgitated their well meaning, dinnertime family political conversations. "Pat Buchanan will finally take care of those immigrants. Get them out of our country and give America back to Americans!" ...really, where would I begin with this?...but at that time, I simply retorted, "Do you realize that if Mr. Buchanan was voted in, passed such a law, and then enforced it, I and my family would be deported?" They answered with confusion, "but YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE AN IMMIGRANT" ****more on this later

Anyway, back to the poor immigrant's triumph...I was in Congress receiving my award from none other then the campaign driver against immigration and for hatred, Karen Johnson.

As she handed me the award with a large smile on her face, she leaned in to hug me as a demonstration of goodwill and congratulations. I gladly returned the embrace and while the Congress was applauding, I leaned closer and whispered, "Just so you know, you're hugging an immigrant."

- just as a closer...the award was revoked later due to my immigrant status...and my dad was paying taxes just like every American...go figure.

Prostituting Teenage Girls...are we all guilty?

2008-01-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

My family, being deeply Canadian, naturally attended an NHL hockey game while in Phoenix over the holiday. Phoenix Coyotes vs. Colorado Avalanche. There was a buzz in the arena and the simpleness of spirit that exists among true hockey lovers...mullets galore, sometimes wranglers, sun drained, sweat stained baseball caps with a beer in one hand and a hotdog in the other - really...can anyone think of a more satisfying environment? So what does this "good clean fun" have to do with prostituting teenage girls...

Periodically, the snow around the goals and boards builds up and needs to be cleared. There are two teenage boys and two teenage girls who comprise the clean up crew. Here is the problem: the teenage boys are in appropriate track suits, hats and gloves to scoop up the snow...the teenage girls were dressed in bikini tops with short skirts in order to scoop up snow. **Note that both males and females were doing the EXACT same job**

Are we at a point in society in which we allow 15 year old girls to skate in front of 20,000 onlookers wearing hardly anything? And to exacerbate this abhorrent display of "young girl sexuality" the disparity of man vs. woman was illustrated in a blatant side-by-side comparison; boy-track suit, girl - bikini.

Don't we prosecute individuals for sexually exploiting girls of that age? So we, my family, could not be participants. We instantly sent an email to the Phoenix Coyotes head office via my Blackberry...it read:

"We are sitting at the Coyotes game....huge hockey fans. Our question is: Why do the female ice cleaners wear skimpy shirts and skirts, while the males doing the exact same job are wearing sport outfits? The two men behind us were chatting to one another commenting that they were sickened by seeing teenage girls wearing the least amount of clothing as possible 'and the message that sends to our youth'.

Please change this sexist and degrading practice. Thank you"

Not Even God Wants Me Now

2007-12-20T05:36:00.000-08:00

One of my best friends is now two years sober. I remember when we were in college at the University of Chicago. He and I became instant friends as we both, at the age of 18 years old, had the unique attribute of abstaining from alcohol and drugs. We had similarly different reasons for abstaining. I also remember his first drink. One night 4 weeks ago while staring down at his sushi, he tried to elucidate hell, as he has experienced it. It is a hell laden with shame and guilt.

His life defined a generous life. I met his parents the night before graduation. They were everything that he described them as - cold, uncaring, self-consumed. He spent most of the night with me and my parents. I heard from him periodically throughout the following 5 years. I knew he had become a bartender. He is so smart. He would succeed at anything he tried...and he tried being a bartender.

It was about 4pm on a warm November day, 2006 when I got a call from him. We talked for hours. He told me that he had been addicted to cocaine and alcohol; he moved on from that topic quickly. He described his new employment which he was running, and that he was living with a mutual friend from college. He told me that he had desires to be a dad - to get married. I was dumbfounded. I, myself, had just turned 28 years old and was only now coming to a place where I desired to be married...but him...I didn't expect those desires to be expressed. We really are all the same deep down. Companionship is imperative.

I was recently in Chicago with the primary intention of visiting him. I watched him in his new addiction - a form of Ultimate Fighting. He is very good at it, but i can't really be surprised. He goes all the way with everything he commits to...even alcohol and cocaine. He won the match I went to. Afterwords, we had many minutes that weekend to discuss his hell and his burdened triumph. He would say with a smile, "I am a drunk and an addict"! I hugged him in return for each announcement.Perhaps because I didn't know what to say.

During those years he woke up on corners in the city somewhere in his car. No memory of how or when he got there. He shut those who cared about him out. He was drunk or high continually. He revealed people's intervention attempts: "you have a problem buddy, I think you need some help". Valiant and well-intentioned attempts, but useless. It wasn't until a mere acquaintance commented, "something is different about you. You have changed. There is nothing, only emptiness behind your eyes".

He went to a treatment program in Tucson. He described it to me with resentment, with relief, with veneration, with anger, and with a smile. AA uses twelve steps.
The 12 Suggested Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous1)We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable. 2)Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3)Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4)Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5)Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6)Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7)Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8)Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9)Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10)Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11)Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. 12)Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

He has a friend, a 70 year old alcoholic who calls him more than once a day. They help each other. They tell each other their fears, their desires, their cravings. My friend talks of God's will as something bigger than himself. He told me that substance abuse is selfish, all consuming and his victims throughout the years lie on a battlefield of destruction. He seeks to serve others. He is still not a religious person.

He told me about a guy in treatment who, in the midst of his addictions felt such deep guilt and shame for his actions (sidebar: my friend explained the paradoxical realization of the hurt he was causing others, but the inability to change-a source of great regret and shame even now.). This man was suicidal as a result and felt such despair one day while he was high, he stepped in front of a moving vehicle. He not only survived, but he sustained no injury above a cut. My friend aptly pointed out what the response of the general public would be, and consequently what my very thoughts were on the matter. It is a miracle! God must have wanted him on this Earth for more time, for more purpose, for more progression. My friend explained however, that the addict only lamented, "not even God wants me now." Tears formed in my eyes and a lump the size of Iceland pulsated in my throat. I too stared at my sushi in fear that I would lose it. Screaming in my head were thoughts inadequately describing my friend's inherent value as he told me that during treatment, and even now, residual guilt led him to also assume that his actions were so repugnant, led him to so much evil, were so loathsome, vile and abhorrent, how could anyone, even God forgive him? And even if they could, how could he and why would he accept it. He knew. He knew better. And yet he still walked down to hell. Haven't I done that? Don't I do that?

He told me that the more deeply his dependence grew, the more he had to also consume to quiet the demons. A couple of shots was no longer sufficient to replace his shame with ecstasy, his despair with amnesia.

We went to a bar. He ordered a club soda; me, a cranberry juice. We were both offered vodka shots by our associates to which we both, simultaneously rejected. I looked at him, and he returned my gaze, and for a moment we both went to the days when we were 18. Before hell had been tasted. Before, when he felt no shame, no self-loathing. It was then, just for a brief moment, he experienced the glory of Redemption. He experienced, but for a brief moment, what it means to be made into our better selves.

My first blog...

2007-12-01T10:59:00.000-08:00

My brilliant friend Monique recognized that I have a lot of important things to teach others...so here goes. I have added a talk I gave re: What Equality Between the Sexes Means in the Context of the Gospel...

Today is Mother’s Day, but I want to begin by telling you about my father. He is a kind, gentle man. He works hard to provide for our family. However, In terms of discipline, he was always the pushover; never raising his voice, melting under the tears of his children…but there was one offence to which he had no patience or flexibility. That is if we as children in any way offended our mother by our words or action we felt a deep disapproval and disappointment from him. To offend my mother was an egregious act. His defense of her honor and place was and is apparent. Today, I have the great privilege of speaking generally about women. The things I will speak on are relevant to both the women and the men in the congregation. Upon telling my friends that this was my topic on the third week of being in the ward we agreed that this may be my last! Because one of my favorite quotes is:

People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. – Rebecca West

But truly, I feel honored to speak on this most important topic and so today I will begin to try to define what I mean by “her place” in regards to my mother and what “equality” between men and women in the context of the gospel really means.

I will begin by giving examples of women’s roles during different times throughout the history of humankind. It begins with Eve. Spencer W. Kimball explicated:

“The companionship role is the one most often identified for women in the Church. Adam "began to till the earth," and "Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him" (Moses 5:1). President Spencer W. Kimball pointed out that women are "full partners" with men (Kimball, p. 42).”

Later on in history, we have seen women respond to the great responsibility of fighting against injustice, even when an act is commonly accepted among those in and out of the Church of Christ. Many of you probably have not heard of the Daughters of Zelophehad. They lived in the time of Moses. Their father had died in the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness and the 5 sisters were left. Prior to entering the Promised Land, the law at the time was that land would be inherited by sons only and it was by this precedence that Moses established tribal land designations. If there were no sons, the nearest male relative would take possession of the land and often wed the remaining female relatives. You can see the predicament these 5 daughters had. But they had a sense of equality, and righteousness. Thus they brought their dilemma to Moses the prophet as found in Numbers 27:3-11

Polygamy as practiced in the 19th century placed, perhaps paradoxically, more responsibility upon women. “A woman whose husband divided his time between multiple wives and/or missionary service was often obliged to provide single-handedly both material and emotional support for herself and her children.” “Because of the absence of their husbands, women enlarged their role as "mothers in Zion" with aspects not generally associated with nineteenth-century feminine domesticity. President Brigham Young encouraged the education of BOTH girls and boys in "the manners and customs of distant kingdoms and nations, with their laws, religions, geographical,…and the nature of their political organization" (JD 9:188–89; Widtsoe, p. 211). He also suggested that women should "keep books and sell goods" (JD 12:374–75; Widtsoe, p. 218), and exhorted them to "vote…because women are the characters that rule the ballot box" (JD 1:218; Widtsoe, p. 367). Some LDS women participated in political action concerning their gender, as evidenced by their being the second female population, to vote in a national election.”

In defining “equality” in context of the true gospel, John Widstoe boldly proclaimed:

"In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The gospel…was devised by the Lord for men and women alike…The privileges and requirements of the gospel are fundamentally alike for men and women. The Lord loves His daughters as well as He loves His sons." He goes on to say:

“There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ; and in reality there can be no discrimination between the sexes only as human beings make it or permit it. Men have their work to do and their powers to exercise for the benefit of all the members of the Church regardless of sex or age.
So with woman: Her special gifts are to be exercised for the benefit and up lift of the race. This equally shared responsibility makes men and women real 'team –mates' in that which makes for human progress. Each one is a complement to the other and neither sex alone may function completely in the world's work." – John Widstoe

Simply, equality is not “sameness” – doing the exact same things “anything you can do I can do better” type of attitude but rather a progression, and addition to the Kingdom that is equally valid and considered.

We learn more about how this equality occurse between men and women in 2 Nephi 2:26:

And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon…”

You see the grand, encompassing principle of individual agency is not genderfied. This is not only a right, but a responsibility given to ALL God’s children, both men and women equally. It MUST be this way as each child of God must fulfill the measure of their creation. We are all individually responsible for our choices to God. Thus it follows that a woman’s conversion, intelligence and spiritual life must not be a derivative, but immeadiate and individual.

Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of The Twelve further explains:

"Perhaps the Church does more to enlighten understanding about and to lift the cause of women than any other institution on earth. It provides the path to her eternal destiny. To all faithful Saints He has promised thrones, kingdoms, principalities, glory, immortality, and eternal lives. That is the potential for women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. It is exalting, everlasting, and divine."

Thus, to describe a Mormon woman who is smart, motivated, articulate, and driven as “intimidating” is to undermine her strivings to fulfill the measure of her creation as commanded by Heavenly Father.

On the LDS.org website, a description of LDS women is explained:

“LDS beliefs create a unique feminine identity that encourages women to develop their abilities as potentially Godlike individuals, while at the same time asserting that the most important activities for BOTH men and women center around the creation and maintenance of family relationships.

“The present role of women in LDS society is singular to the degree that it reflects the teachings and doctrines of the Church. Among the most fundamental of these is individual agency, or the right to choose. Consistent with this doctrine, a woman’s role varies with her circumstances and the choices that she makes within the context of LDS belief; she may fill many roles simultaneously.”

An LDS woman sets herself apart from others in the world not because she is something that we think she should be or because she is doing what we think she should do, but an LDS woman sets herself apart because she is driven by individual agency. The agency that Heavenly Father has bestowed upon her. The agency that is defended and justified by the supernal sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Her course is not determined by her sex appeal, the job she is doing, the size of her chest, the chewiness of her cookies, the cleanliness of her house, the number of children she has, her marriage status, the size of her waist… but rather, her course is determined by the righteous use of her agency. An LDS man sets himself apart from the world by promoting this.