The Soccer Mom Vote

Shame, Shame, Shame

I'm sick.  My kids have been sick all week.  Warning: I won't be holding back any punches on this one.

If you haven't heard, the House yesterday failed to get the two-thirds vote it needed to override a presidential veto to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  This program would expand the current one by covering an additional 4 million children living in the U.S. and increase costs by $35 billion over the next five years.  Yes, that's a lot of money, but money that is needed if we are to provide health care for the now one in eight children living in the U.S. that do not have it.

The president and Republicans who upheld his veto argued that the bill was too wide-reaching.  They claim that the new bill would provide coverage for children, and even adults, in middle class families and even, gasp, illegal immigrants who certainly don't need or deserve the government's assistance, I guess.  However, I disagree.

Health care costs are out of control.  I looked at my husband's pay stub just yesterday and had no idea that between his employer and our family we had already paid out $12,000 to our health plan.  And let's remember that's just for coverage.  That doesn't include co-pays, prescriptions or any out of pocket expenses that would be required for things not covered by the plan.  I don't complain too much in that I'm lucky to have a good health plan (one where I don't have to think about whether to call the doctor when my kids need to be seen) and my husband's employer is a large corporation and therefore pays the bulk of the cost (at least for now).

But I don't care if you're in middle-class America or not, if you need help in providing health care coverage for your children then you should receive it.  No one in this country should have to hesitate in taking a sick child to the doctor because they won't be able to afford the expenses involved. I would like to believe that America(ns) is better than that; that we care about the children in this country and want to see them healthy no matter where they live or what their socio-economic status. 

There will be another vote.  The Democrats have promised that and if you'd like to take action regarding this issue visit Momsrising.org to sign their petition encouraging legislators to keep this issue alive.  Don't be sucked in by the hype - this is not a political or partisan issue, this is a humanitarian issue and it needs our attention.

Besides, if we can afford to spend $200 million dollars a day to wage a war in Iraq that kills people, I think we can throw some money at the more than 10 million children in the U.S. who would otherwise go without quality health care.

Nickel and Dimed

This week was a long one.  I worked too much in order to get the weekend off.  Don't get me wrong, it was worth it, but I just wish I could take vacation days or not have to worry so much about getting all my hours in.  The old paycheck dictating my life.  I hate that.

Which brings me to the book I just finished reading, "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," by Barbara Ehrenreich.  It's a must read.  It's about all us Working Joes out there who work hard, put in our hours, sometimes hold one full-time and one part-time job and don't get fairly compensated.  Ehrenreich lived in three different parts of the country and went out and got jobs of the "unskilled" variety (maid, waitress, retail worker, etc.) and tried to live for one month on the hourly wage she brought home.  Let me give you a hint - It didn't go very well. 

Certainly she didn't starve and she was able to put a roof over her head, but that was about it.  Ehrenreich chronicled how grocery shopping was minimal because she mostly rented motel rooms by the week and they didn't come with kitchens, which had her eating most of her meals at fast food joints.  She had to budget everything - gas, laundromat money, clothing allowance (which was pretty much zero) - and when a medical issue came up it left her short on rent money.

That's what I liked so much about this book.  Ehrenreich is very honest that in her experiment she is merely pretending.  She doesn't assume to truly understand what it's like to live on minimum wage and several times mentions feeling like a fake because she can return home to her comfortable upper middle class life at any time.  She's never really in any kind of danger of not making ends meet.  But because she is so honest she also is able to notice so many of the small details about what life for the working class is like.  How so many live with extended family, by necessity, in overcrowded apartments or motel rooms; the fact that the majority go to work ill or injured not only because they can't afford to take an unpaid day off, but because they don't have the money to go to the doctor or pay for a prescription.  Things I just don't have to think about.

While I'm not living the high life and I am one of the unskilled (don't all jobs require a skill set?) workers of America this book really made me think about the fact that if I didn't have a husband who is a "professional" I'd easily be one of these people struggling to pay my weekly rent.  Ehrenreich points out that the biggest criticism of "welfare mothers" is that if they just got out and worked for a living they wouldn't have to be on welfare.  Well, as this book clearly illustrates, sometimes working for a living just isn't enough - especially if you're single and have children.

I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a reality check, for anyone feeling sorry for themselves, for anyone who cares about people really.  There is just so much to it and it's clear, concise and an easy, powerful read.  It took me just a couple of days to reach the end but it's impact will have a lasting effect.  It's an eye-opener and with election season in full swing, this is definitely an issue we should be putting on the table. 

Public Service or Sick Entertainment?

Recently, I was tipped off to an in-depth article in Esquire magazine that went behind the scenes of Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator."  If you're not familiar with the prime time series you can get the lowdown here, but basically Dateline (hosted by Chris Hansen) teams up with an independent "watchdog" group to catch sexual predators in online chats with minors. 

Then Dateline hires an actor to pose as the minor, talk with the offenders on the phone and set up an in-person meeting at a house leased by Dateline.  The decoy house, as it is known, is wired with all kinds of microphones and cameras so not a single moment is missed when Hansen confronts the people who come to the house thinking they're going to have an encounter with a minor.  After the interview, the predator is arrested upon leaving the decoy house by local law enforcement who have been previously informed by Dateline about who to look for, when and where.

While Dateline sells the show by saying they're helping to take dangerous people off the streets, I think the whole premise is gory. It provides the audience with the chance to watch someone be set up and humiliated, plain and simple. Although I have no sympathy for these criminals, I don't think it's the role of the news media to conduct sting operations involving sexual predators and then televise them as investigative reporting and a public service.  I mean, if it was really about catching dangerous people then why aren't they arrested after engaging in the online sexual solicitation of minors?  After all, that is the actual crime.  Why the need for a decoy house?  Because it makes for dramatic, some would say "good," television.

That drama was turned up a notch when a man from Texas, a felony prosecutor no less, was involved in the online chat sting. Bill Conradt used very explicit language in chatting with who he believed was a 13-year-old boy and after several phone conversations Conradt agreed to a meeting.  However, he never showed up.  Dateline's actor called the man several times trying to entice him into coming to the decoy house, Conradt continued to say he would be there, but he never followed through.

Conradt had already committed a crime, so police, and Dateline, decided to confront the man at his home. This is where the waters get very murky.  While it was necessary for the police to go to the Conradt's residence for the arrest,  why was it necessary for Dateline to be there? Conradt did not take Dateline's bait to show up at the decoy house, so shouldn't their involvement have ended there?

Well, Dateline was at the house and so was the SWAT team. Once Conradt realized he was caught he decided to take his own life while still inside his home.  Suddenly, the light began to shine very brightly on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator." 

20/20 did a story involving the show and, like the Esquire magazine article, painted a very dark picture of the incident where Dateline didn't just tag along with police or conduct it's own independent investigation - 20/20 pointed out that there are allegations (from people who worked on that particular episode) that the show actually may have influenced police procedure.  A former police officer who provided security for the Dateline crew even goes so far as to say that the arrests that are caught on tape are set up to give the most dramatic visual effect and not to insure the safety of the police officers themselves.

This all just doesn't sit well with me.  Not only do I not see this show as a form of public service, but I find it dangerous that a camera crew can influence who gets arrested, when and where.  (By the way, Dateline aired the Conradt story - SWAT team, ambulance, medical helicopter and all - weeks ago.  Apparently they didn't feel any responsibility when it came to how things turned out.  I mean, the guy was a criminal, he doesn't deserve to be treated like a human, does he?  They certainly didn't air the episode to expose Conradt publicly as a threat to our children - he was already dead by then.)

There are so many facets to this story, and I've written so much already, that I can't possibly get into them all.  However, I encourage you to read the Esquire article and really think about how far is too far?  Are we really doing a service to ourselves or our children by watching these kinds of shows or are we being sadistic voyeurs who are feeding into the lowest of the low in television news and entertainment?

I don't want sexual predators anywhere near my children either, but I really don't think "To Catch a Predator" is the answer.  After all, about 90% of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by someone the children know, so it's really more important to know about the people who your children come into contact with everyday rather than the random guy down the street or on the Internet. And if Dateline isn't providing us with any answers, then why are they on TV again?

Malls to Teens: Keep Out!

I was listening to NPR the other day, as I often do, and the reporter was doing a story about shopping malls instituting curfews for children under the age of 18.  This particular mall (I can't remember where it was) had recently adopted a policy that required anyone under the age of 18 to exit the mall by 7 p.m. unless accompanied by an adult.

So I was curious.  While I had never heard of such a policy in my area, I wanted to know just how many malls were doing this.  After all, it was getting national media attention.  So I found this article in Time magazine that gave some interesting statistics and arguments.

According to Time, 46 of the 1,200 indoor malls in the United States have some kind of curfew or parental escort policy regarding shoppers under 18.  While many of these policies are aimed at early evening/late night potential for trouble, one mall in Milwaukee has restricted access to teens on Fridays and Saturdays starting at 2 p.m. 

Mall management and security cite incidents of violence that sometimes arise when teens have nothing better to do than loiter at the mall - and we're not just talking about fist fights anymore.  Some of this violence can include handguns.  Yet, I wonder how prevalent these incidents actually are.  I'd like to see the statistics.  Have things gotten so bad that people aren't going to the mall for fear of their lives?

The Time article also stated that another reason for instituting curfews stemmed from complaints from older customers.  The loitering of teens was creating an unpleasant shopping experience because some blocked doorways or were fooling around forcing shoppers to have to find a way around them.  I don't know.  Have we forgotten how to say "Excuse me," or "Hey, guys. Can you take it outside?"  I am, after all, an adult and know how to use my words.  If they're fighting, then by all means mall security, escort them out the front door.

But wait a minute.  Don't some of these teens go to the mall to shop with friends?  Or to get some much needed time away from their parents?  Is that a crime?  Shouldn't they have the same opportunities to spend their money that their parents do?  (Isn't it often their parents' money?)  And if we don't like the behavior of some, then is the answer really to make them disappear?

I guess after reading this story I'm left with two BIG questions: Are we afraid of our teenagers?  And if we are, what does that say about them, and us? 

Another Day, Another Recall

I was driving into work this morning and was informed by the radio news anchor that Mattel has issued a toy recall involving some 9 million pieces.  This, of course, comes after Fisher-Price recalled 1.5 million toys and RC2 Corporation recalled another 1.5 million Thomas the Tank Engine characters because paint that was used in production was contaminated with lead. 

This (as we all know) has shed an unflattering light upon the manufacturing practices in China.  It hasn't just been toys that have caused alarm, but food and children's jewelery and toothpaste . . . We've all heard about it so there is no point in recapping everything.  Let's just say that there is a BIG problem.

However, my reprimand isn't necessarily aimed at the government inspectors (or lack there of) because I think it's unreasonable to expect that EVERY product that comes into this country be inspected upon arrival before it reaches store shelves - at least not by some government agency.  No, I feel that the onus here is on the corporations selling us the products.

You see, when I exchange my hard earned money for a product that I need or want, I in turn feel that the manufacturers of said product should be selling me a safe product.  Why else would I buy it?  (Especially for my children.)  It's an unwritten contract of sorts - I pay you, you provide me with something that won't make me or my family ill.  Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

Now things in China are exploding.  They are experiencing an Industrial Revolution right now much like the one the U.S. experienced nearly 200 years ago.  I think most of us reading this right now remember the horror stories from our history classes of child labor, industrial accidents that resulted in the loss of limbs, etc.  Anyone read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle?"  I mean, the Industrial Revolution was about survival not quality control.

Which brings me to my point that since we all know what is happening in China, where are the representatives from these big corporations who choose to move overseas and manufacture their products there?  Where are the company inspectors and production managers to oversee the actual making of these goods that they are selling to us?  If you moved your business to a foreign country with different standards and regulations wouldn't you, as a business owner, want to know exactly what was happening on the production line?  Wouldn't you want to make sure that the products being produced there were as good, if not better since you're saving money in production, as all the others carrying your company name and reputation? 

I know I would.  But then again big business isn't concerned with the actual product they put out, but are more focused on profit margins and seeing how little money they can spend on production to bring in more money for profit. 

I think it's time for some good old-fashioned self regulation, so instead of boycotting China (which, no doubt, needs some help) why don't we start boycotting the companies themselves until they can prove to us that they're making their products safe?  That in turn would help China improve its own quality and safety issues because the companies they're working for would insist upon a better, safer product.

Go Green AND Be the Latest in Fashion

Come on.  You knew it was inevitable.  With all the celebrities involved.  The obvious PR push to make environmentalism the latest and greatest.  Well, now you can be "green" AND a hip, cool trend-setter at the same time.

According to this article which appeared in yesterday's New York Times, supermarket chain Whole Foods has started selling reusable, grocery bags designed by London handbag designer Anya Hindmarch.  These bags, which sell for $15 and don the catchy phrase "I'm NOT a plastic bag," are being released in just 15 stores in the New York area (to create demand of course!) and they're already showing up on Ebay for as much as $300 a whack!!  (Not to mention the near riot that occurred in Taiwan last month when shoppers stampeded in order to get their hands on one and sent 30 people to the hospital.)

Of course, the plastics industry is not happy about this.  They say that it's not their plastic bags that are the problem (even though they can take up to 500 years to break down in a landfill and require millions of gallons of oil to produce) - it's people's behaviors.  That's right.  It's the public's fault as usual.  The makers of plastic bags say that we need to recycle more, but I say that we need to start taking the 3 R's to heart and start focusing on reducing the amount of goods we consume and stop using recycling as the answer that makes everything OK.  And because of that I think selling reusable grocery bags is a great idea which is why I wish I weren't so cynical about it.

See, I understand the need for making things fun and creating a buzz so that people tear themselves away from their televisions, computers, cell phones, etc. and take an interest in something other than themselves.  I understand that we are facing a crisis as we try and figure out how to dispose of, without causing even more damage to our precious planet, the approximately 100 billion plastic bags we as Americans throw away each year (and recycle less than 1 percent of).  I guess I'm just a bit of a romantic. I wish that people would take action, not because it's the "in" thing to do, after all fads fade away, but because it's the right thing to do; the necessary thing.

Discrimination Knows No Time Limit

A little over two weeks ago Lily Ledbetter tried to equal the playing field for women in the workplace, but the U.S. Supreme Court blocked her attempt. 

Ms. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama for almost 20 years.  Ledbetter held a supervisory role at the plant and found out that after nearly two decades of service she was making $6,000 less annually than the next highest paid supervisor - a man.  The disparity was even greater when compared to other male counterparts.

Ledbetter was outraged and decided to sue Goodyear for what she claimed was gender pay discrimination perpetrated over several years.  An initial decision decided by a jury sided with Ledbetter, but on appeal (fighting lawyers not only representing Goodyear, but those working for the Bush Administration as well) Ledbetter lost her case. So Ledbetter and her lawyers took the case all the way to the Supreme Court where, in a close 5-4 decision, they were told that because her claim dated as far back as 15 years ago the statute of limitations had run out. 

So much for equal pay for equal work.

You see there is a law on the books, Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act, that is supposed to prevent discrimination in the workplace and give employees a right to make a claim against their employer when they feel they've been discriminated against due to race, gender, etc.  However, this new interpretation by the Court states that employees have 180 days from the time of the act of discrimination to make a claim against their employer or forfeit their right to seek legal action.

Why is this especially disconcerting in the area of pay discrimination?  Well, just like Ms. Ledbetter there is often little opportunity to discover what other employees are getting paid and therefore it could take years to find out that you've been discriminated against.  In fact, it is often against company policy to share with your colleagues what you're being paid.

This new interpretation of the law is a blow to women everywhere who find themselves struggling to gain equality in the workplace.  Women across the board generally receive only about 80% of the pay that men do for the same jobs.  And that's just among women with full-time jobs - the disparity is even greater when compared with part-time work and if you're a woman with children - well, good luck.

The good news is that it's not hopeless.  After this decision came down Democrats (led by Hillary Clinton) have moved to create legislation that would challenge this ruling.  Which puts the power back into the hands of women all over the country.  Contact your senators and let them know that you're furious; that you support legislation that would provide equal pay for equal work, regardless of a person's gender, and that would create a system of recourse for those who find themselves discriminated against anyway.

This is not something that we have to just accept.  This is something that can and must be changed.

Children & Healthcare in the U.S.

Did you know . . .

• 9 million children living in the U.S. are uninsured?
• Children without insurance are less likely to seek medical help potentially leading to a lifetime of health problems?
• Children covered by adequate health insurance perform better in school?
• Children without health insurance rarely seek preventative care and therefore (on average) miss more school days due to illness and their parents more days from work?

According to the Campaign for Children's Health Care great strides have been made in obtaining health insurance coverage for America's children, but 1 in 8 children remain uninsured.  That's right, 1 out of every 8 children.  That's enough to fill more than one million little league teams.

I once was one of these children.  Thankfully I went only a short time without health insurance.  I was in high school when my father was laid off.  He had the option of paying for the health insurance we had previously taken for granted at cost.  That's right.  They lay you off and then politely offer you the opportunity to pay for your own health insurance which for my family was going to cost $1,500 per month.  (That was almost 15 years ago, btw.)  And that only covered a portion of the cost for things like emergencies and hospital stays should the need arise for them.  Prescriptions were not covered.  Dental visits were not covered.  Eye care was not covered.

I have two younger sisters and decided that they needed things like teeth cleanings and doctor's appointments more than I did.  (I am no martyr. Actually, I have a bit of a phobia about doctors in general and enjoyed not having to make routine appointments.  I won't tell you how long it was until I finally made it back to the dentist :)  But as I learned in composing this post, teenagers are just as in need of adequate health insurance because they are more at risk for things like sports injuries.  The point is ALL children need health insurance coverage because without it they often go without treatment and something as easily treated as an ear infection can cause permanent hearing damage if left unchecked.

While insuring children should be a national priority as a human rights issue, we as a society will see other benefits.  Adequately insured children will miss less school days which allows parents to be at work rather than caring for a sick child.  Children with adequate medical care perform better in school not just because they're in the classroom more, but because their emotional and social development is improved.

So I'm calling on everyone who reads this post to sign this petition sponsored by the Campaign for Children's Health Care, as well as organizations like Momsrising.org, the Alliance for Children and Families, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Federation of Teachers and many others which calls upon the U.S. government to make providing health care for ALL children in the U.S. a national priority.

It's time to make access to adequate health care at a reasonable price a right for all to enjoy, not just a privilege of those fortunate enough to have the means to afford it.

My Two Cents

I realize that the Imus controversy has become old news, but I still have a few things to say about it.  I'm also curious to hear what you all have to say.  I mean, I've had a couple of discussions with my husband; I've been listened to the NPR discussions and the evening news; I've heard the "experts" and the friends. I also heard about how the Imus Ranch charity will now suffer because of his firing and therefore so will the children with cancer - I think I've heard it all by now.

But what I want to say, at least to Imus, is that no matter what his intention was - it wasn't funny; it wasn't a joke. And it's not because it wasn't politically correct or because the public has become too sensitive and we don't know how to take a joke anymore.

It was racist. It was sexist. He was a public figure on the public airwaves and while he has every right to say what he wants to say, the public also has a right to react to it. Free speech has its consequences. Yet, this isn't really about free speech for me. The greatest impact this whole "controversy" has had on me has been with regard to my disappointment with the society we live in in 2007.

My first disappointment came when I realized that there was even a discussion as to whether what Imus said was "OK" or not; whether since it was said in humor - Just stop right there. Of course it wasn't OK! These women were playing an athletic competition; they were representing Rutgers with pride and dignity; They were respectful and should have received the same respect in return. Yet, Imus did not make a joke - he tried to reduce these women to nothing more than sub-human, sex objects.

Which led to my second disappointment. People were outraged - as they should have been - and some people were defending him saying that it was just a joke and "why can't people take a joke anymore?" It just really took the wind out of me when I had to face the fact that things really haven't gotten all that much better for women and minorities in the U.S. if there was a debate going on as to whether or not such derogatory speech was humorous.

Seriously, why is it that there are still so many people out there who think it's OK to use derogatory terms to describe other people? How is that humorous? Because I really don't see the humor in making fun of people because of their gender or their ethnicity or their sexual preference or even the way they happen to wear their hair for that matter. Why is it funny to make fun of other people at all? Shouldn't we be a little more civilized than that?

I love a good laugh as much as anyone, but not at the expense of hurting someone else. That to me just isn't funny. Whether they're in the public eye and "asking for it" or they're your next door neighbor - I wouldn't like it if someone was making fun of me, so I try not to do it to others.

Making jokes at the expense of others, so that you can feel like you're part of the "in" group or so that you can feel like you're somehow "better" or smarter or whatever - I guess I was just hoping that that sort of thing was on the decline. I mean, why do people have to do it? Whether it's through supposed humor or music lyrics or in conversations they have at the dinner table? Why do they feel compelled to make such negative generalizations and use terms that are only meant to demean and oppress other human beings? Aren't the majority of us just trying to survive this crazy, mixed up world; to take care of ourselves and our families?

And then there are the slew of other issues that come up when talking about discrimination. For example, while women and African Americans have been legally given the right to vote, it's disheartening to know that they're not always given an easy route to exercise that right. While African Americans are no longer enslaved on the cotton fields of the South, they certainly do not experience social or economic equality, equal protection under the law or the same access to opportunity afforded to those of lighter skin tones. African American and Latina women are probably discriminated against most often because they have two strikes against them in their ethnicity and their gender. (Women aren't a minority in the U.S.  by the way, statistically speaking. Yet look at the discrimination and uphill battles we face.)  Gee, look who Imus's comment was aimed at.

I don't believe in coincidences.

We certainly can't fire every person who is racist or sexist, but we can make an example of those who publicly show their hatred. We must declare as a society that we will not tolerate such behavior because it's not a joke.  We need to make that declaration together, beyond gender and culture lines; to say that we will not allow racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind, etc. in our society because it is simply wrong and should not be tolerated.

It isn't an issue of free speech, but of respect for our fellow human beings.

Speaking of Polls

It could be that I'm tired and my brain just doesn't want to cooperate in stringing together several coherent thoughts on one subject right now.  Maybe it was the previous post (by another Nancy) about polling that inspired me.

Maybe it's all the speeches, the public appearances in already "crucial" primary states, the pandering for election campaign donations . . . but I'm curious, too.  I'm curious as to what issues concern you most as you listen to the soundbytes put forth on the evening news. 

After all, I've been quite impressed with the thoughts of this here readership and I want to know what your two biggest concerns are; What you want to see changed when a new administration steps into the White House.  Heck, with all the exposure this blog has been getting out there in cyberspace, maybe some of these candidates seeking to become the next President of the United States will take notice.

I guess if I had to narrow it down to just two I'd ask for comprehensive plans regarding how we improve the lives of the poor in this country (How do we spread the wealth so that all children will have nutritious food to eat, clean clothes to wear and sturdy, safe homes to sleep in); and second, a plan of action regarding a complete overhaul of the public education system so that all children. regardless of social status, income or geographic location, will have access to curriculum that will allow them to become successful adults with the economic means to support themselves and their families that can then go on to contribute to their communities in a positive way.

It's a tall order to fill.  I realize that.  Yet, addressing these two particular issues would have a highly positive effect on so many others, ie. the ever widening gap between the middle and upper classes, the lack of proper health care, abuses of public assistance programs, unemployment rates, etc.  It's like playing with dominoes - if you take care of poverty first, followed closely by education and set the results in motion many of our social ills will collapse right behind them.

And yet, I don't hear plans addressing these two biggies from any of the frontrunners.  I hear a lot about what a national health care system might look like or how reversing certain tax breaks would help fund this social program or that one, but to me these kinds of solutions are just Band-Aids.  They don't address the fundamental problems that underlie so many of these other issues and I think it's high time someone did.  If I've learned anything as I've come of age in this crazy world over the last 15 years or so it's that it's high time for real change.  No more covering up the wounds.  It's time to take the steps necessary to heal them and put a stop to the decay that is spreading throughout the land.

But that's just me.  What two issues concern you most when you think about the United States today on March 19th?  If you could sit down with Obama, Clinton, McCain, Giuliani or Edwards, what two subjects would you ask them to address?