Someone who cares...NOT

"If you are going to have psychiatric problems at least do it around someone who gives a shit."  I witnessed this understandable, if callous reaction to someone who has gone through 5 years of hell. The person reacting that way was somehow related to a Congressman who lived in that neighborhood. She was riding a bicycle towing a little trailer with a child in it also in a bicycle helmet so I couldn't tell who she was. Her bitchiness was obviously directed at my friend since there was no one close enough for her statement to be directed at anyone else. My friend understands her lack of compassion, she has felt that way about HERSELF. In fact, she states quite often that no one can be harder on her than she is herself.

For the past year she had been receiving excellent care from Easter Seals. Her life had stabilized and was told she didn't need individual therapy any longer. She has  not been quite in agreement with that but agreed that the worst appeared to be over. The problem is that she has begun having new symptoms: inability to put more than one sentence together that makes any sense. It has her quite frightened. She has some others alarming symptoms too. Then last week she received a letter from the DHS that SNAP and Medicaid were closing her case. The questions abound: Why close it now? Is there any connection to the date of October 1st which is also the day the Marketplace starts accepting applications?  Whatever the case, she has some serious physical illness as well as the Bi-Polar, PTSD and major depression.  She is now even more frightened that she was a year ago. When she gets frightened her Bi-Polar kicks in. Yesterday she had a barium swallow test and they showed her the x-ray - quite clearly there was fluid of some type above her stomach.  It is NOT supposed to be there. She also has trouble swallowing.  So she is afraid of being ill without health insurance until.
January1st. 

The reason the case was closed on her was, it turned out was because her SSDI was also being closed out. She has to go to a hearing and to apply again. She already had a meeting with her case worker's boss and he talked so fast her head was spinning. She was told to sign a report and never gave her the chance to read it before signing. She suspects that it was a waiver of the full hearing. It just seems wrong.  If the hearing DOES take place she will be at a distinct disadvantage given her problem with her speech AND not knowing  anyone who could be her advocate. 

So she is afraid again. We are both afraid what will happen with her SSDI. Even on SSDI and on Medicaid she will be below the poverty line and unable to get the medical care she needs. Nor will she be able to afford to get her 12 medications which comes to a LOT of money without Medicaid. Her fears are very real. And neither of us knows what will happen.  

Maybe she doesn't give a ** either.

MI Dems

One of the problems with the Democratic Party in Michigan is that it is cliquish. Case in point: The convention is brutal to novices. The convention is just a place where elected delegates go to be ignored.  People with disabilities get platitudes not inclusiveness. I was at this past convention and attended the disabilities caucus. Everywhere else the candidates for the head of the state party made big entrances to rally the votes. In the disability caucus they barely made an appearance. The party goes all out in support of the other caucuses but the disability caucus  is left on the outside looking in. I don't think the party needs to give up anything except the overwhelming condescension to new delegates and the disabled. I believe that this is the basic problem - a lack of true inclusiveness.  I know, for instance, that I will be shunned for even expressing this (of course it doesn't matter too much since the Party has never heard any thing I say). It SHOULD be possible to disagree without being shunned as a troublemaker.. The Democratic party in Michigan OUGHT to welcome different voices and points of view. The differences can make the the party stronger. Groups of any persuasion need to have unity in the midst of diversity.The diversity is the breath of fresh air required when a group or movement becomes too stodgy and set in it's ways. The trick is how to revive not revile.We will know that has happened when we can talk about differences and transform the sticking points into walking points.

Testimony for Public Hearing

Mr. Calley, Honorable State Senators and Representatives, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad for this opportunity to speak about my experiences with the mental health system in the State of Michigan.

I could easily spend my allotted time talking about the lack of health insurance since it was a large part of my struggle. However, that is for another hearing on another day. Suffice it to say, the lack of insurance took its toll. I had other stresses like being unemployed, the end of unemployment benefits, my inability to find a job, to name just a few.

My journey started when I fell ill during a Forth of July parade.  I had been walking on behalf of a politician who will remain nameless. I was taken to the hospital for heat exhaustion, This was an added stress because I worried about how I was going to pay the hospital bill. The worry led to many panic attacks but after about a month I learned  that the hospital bill was paid for as well as the ambulance .

My best guess about what started my descent into the darkness  is that the weight of the previous three years: unemployment, no health insurance, our home mortgage being "underwater," and bill collectors calling several times a day all led me to feeling overwhelmed. I could not see a way out of my mess. I became very depressed and suicidal. I found myself acting impulsively one minute,up and full of energy but the next down the slippery slope of depression. A friend suggested I check out #211. I found a miracle. I am alive today because I made that telephone call to Common Ground which referred me to Easter Seals. They started the process of getting me a  diagnosis and into individual therapy. In the meantime, however, I still had suicidal impulses. It wasn't until I applied for and was granted Social Security and Medicaid that I felt less afraid and secure. It was a great relief.

Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP,  Easter Seals and Common Ground have been my lifeline and I know they are there for many others. Finally I had a little hope, just knowing that I wasn't alone and that there was light at the tunnel. I became aware of why and how I got to the point of ultimate desperation, that it was a toxic combination of Bi-Polar, PTSD and Asperger's Syndrome and  anxiety. For the first time  I began to make sense of the factors that got me in trouble in every work place. I also came to understand that I have a lot of work to do yet with help from a number of medications which work but only if I take them which I have been doing..

The hardest part of dealing with chronic long-term mental illness is the fear that the help will get cut creates more anxiety.Also difficult was accepting help. which was a step in the right direction. I was fortunate the assistance was there and not cut to the bone. If the funding isn't there how many people will fall through the cracks? Even one person is too many.

I have to say that while the mental health system could be better in some respects, it nevertheless made a great difference in my life. Please do not cut the funding that helps so many with treatment for those  of us who were and still are needing assistance . Without treatment, heaven only knows what will happen to us.

Testifying here is a risk for me, I don't often speak about last year because there is still a great deal of stigma attached to mental illness. One thing that needs to done to improve the mental health system would be working to lessen that stigma. It took me a lot to reach out for help and I'd hate to see any more people  who are like me in every respect except they don't find the help they need.  Please do not make it even more difficult for the desperate. Thank you.

Syria

President Obama is currently contemplating taking military measures against the Syrian government due to the horrifying chemical attacks on its own people. While I am sure that he is taking his time to consult  his military staff I can't help wondering is the President is also considering the ethical grounds for lobbing missiles into Syria. 

Military action is liable to kill many innocent bystanders. The only ethical defense for military action would be just war and it does not meet the major principle of proportionality: Is there likely less harm to innocents than doing nothing? Given the bloody history of American intervention, our good intentions usually end badly and with all the problems made considerably worse. American intervention comes across as being imperialistic and makes all sides hate us.

 Kant's Categorical Imperative asks us, "Could we will this course of action universally. in all like situations? If the answer is."No" then don't engage militarily.  If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is this: What is the real reason for military intervention? Is it truly for the the benefit of the Syrian people or is it some other, less noble reason, like oil or to help Israel's regional domination? If it is these latter reasons then more questions need answers: Can we really support Israel's hard line on all it's neighbors? Do we close our eyes and let Israel dictate our actions in the region? Those are but two of the many questions which need answers before we even THINK of taking military action in Syria. I believe that military action is rarely justified and for that reason, I oppose hurling missiles at Syria. 

* I realize that this short essay is very incomplete. My intent was not  do a complete ethical analysis but was meant to raise some of the questions which should be asked before taking the big leap into the abyss of  "helpful destruction". 

No Fast Track for TPP

Sen. Elizabeth Warren   

For three years, a group of some 600 multinational corporations and trade associations have been quietly negotiating a trade pact IN SECRET that could void American laws that protect workers, jobs, health, and the environment. During negotiations here last summer, news leaked of some of the provisions U.S. trade officials were prepared to approve, and a public outcry derailed the talks. Trade Representative Ron Kirk resigned. Now that Michael Froman has been confirmed as the new U.S. Trade Representative he is pushing to renew "fast track" authority so President Obama can sign the agreement first, and then force a quick vote in Congress without any public scrutiny, floor debate, or revisions. 

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of just four U.S. Senators who voted against Froman's confirmation, said of TPP, “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant.” Warren explained, “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.” 

The only TPP language made public was leaked in 2012 and shared by Public Citizen. Since then trade officials have kept a tight lid on the negotiations, only recently allowing members of Congress to view (not copy) the text, which remains "classified." Among the most disturbing revelations in last year's leaked TPP language, that seems to be mirrored in the Atlantic version as well: Foreign companies would have "preferred status" – granting them greater rights within our borders than our own companies enjoy. U.S. companies would have more incentives to offshore jobs, and foreign companies would not be bound by the minimum wage and could sue the U.S. if our health, safety, or environmental regulations interfered with their profits. Jurisdiction over such suits would rest not in the hands of elected officials or judges, but with an international business tribunal. Their decisions, which would be binding upon all member nations, would supersede our own laws – including our Constitution. 


That's why I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate, which says:

"The White House and the U.S. Trade Representative are urging Congress to abdicate some of its power over approval of trade agreements by renewing "fast track" authority. Fast track would allow the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership to leapfrog customary legislative protocol and be put to a rapid "up or down" vote without a public hearing, floor debate, or amendments. Forcing Congress to vote on an agreement this complex without adequate time for open hearings, review, and public scrutiny, sets a dangerous precedent. Congress, we urge you: just say NO to fast track!" 

Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name: 

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-renew-fast?source=s.fwd&r_by=519408 


(From email sent from Senator Elizabeth Warren via MoveOn.org)

Just say, "NO" to the TPP

Right now, on the Asian side of the Pacific ocean, a trade deal is being negotiated. It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal between nations that border the Pacific ocean. By and large, this deal is being negotiated in secret. In fact, my congressman has been in Asia, supposedly to discuss the treatment of workers as well as working conditions. While this may be true, as far as it goes, it would seem that there is more to it. It is highly unlikely that working conditions is the only item on the congressman's agenda. More likely is that he is in the region to attend and participate in talks surrounding the TPP.

The mainstream media has been totally silent about this agreement which may "...undermine our own laws and increase the opportunity for corporate takeovers of public resources in the United States and abroad." (Wenonah Hauter, "The Un-American Way: On the Anti-Democratic 'Trans-Pacific Partnership'" in Common Dreams,org, August 22,2013)

The agreement would do many things, few of which would help most people in the United States nor in the other 10 countries. It would increase the export of natural gas and increase food imports. In the process, fracking will most assuredly increase. (ibid.)

It would also set up a framework whereby "...corporations would acquire an equal status to countries, allowing them to take legal action against governments both at the national and local levels." (ibid.) Laws protecting the public and to protect the environment could be stripped bare or even overturned completely. Laws governing the import of seafood, for example, could be rewritten or overturned. This would open the floodgates to seafood from overseas, from countries without the high standards our government currently requires. (ibid)
"The TPP would potentially give companies the power to sue local governments, granting them their own permission to exploit natural resources and undermine local laws. Treaties like the TPP undermine important efforts by grassroots movements and governments to protect people and the environment against the dangers of infecting our food system with increased use of antibiotics and hormones or the risks associated with fracking for natural gas." (ibid.)
There is, obviously, much more to this so-called "Partnership", but
our history with other trade agreements makes it almost certain that American jobs will be affected in a negative fashion, ala NAFTA.

Given the secretive nature of TPP I have to say that I am more than a little distressed that my own congressman sees fit to mislead his constituents about the nature of his journey to Asia. Why all the secrecy? Could it be because the respective governments and trade partners (corporations) want it that way in order to prevent the people of the United States to become vocal in opposition?  If so, too bad because we absolutely need to be very vocal in our contact with our legislators and the White House. As Ms. Hauter points out, "Undermining laws that U.S. citizens voted to put in place isn’t the American way." (ibid)  I wish Rep. Levin would realize that fact.

Just say "No!" to TPP.

The Dangers of Acting Ethically

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning

When I was a child I was told to "do what's right" and to tell the truth. Though I have developed a somewhat more sophisticated system of ethics and sense of morality, these two exhortations remain moral mainstays. Granted, doing what's right isn't always crystal clear and telling the truth sometimes steps on people's toes. The tasks are thus to determine what is the morally right action and how best to tell the truth.

I imagine these considerations, or something like them, raged in Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's mind when he saw what was happening in the U.S. military. Rape, torture, indiscriminate killing of civilians (to name but a few) were all there to see in his role in the US Army. He was expected to see it and keep his "mouth shut". The question must have surfaced in his mind,
"At what point is following orders outweighed by higher moral principle?"

Evidently, his decision was that doing the right thing involved telling the truth about what was happening inside the US military. The higher good was exposing wrongdoing so that it could be corrected. The higher good was truth telling. But the military doesn't see it this way. To them, following orders is the ultimate "right thing". Apparently, it does not matter that the orders are morally wrong in most minds. It just matters that the orders were given.

Bradley Manning knew what he was doing and probably knew the consequences but elected to release the details of military wrong doing anyway. His mistake was in expecting that anything would really change inside the military which has stayed busy trying to cover the left and right flank. Wrong was done but their only response was to portray Manning as a traitor to his country. Instead of investigating the torture, the killings and other misdeeds the mainstream media in this country followed the lead of military command like cows being led around by the nose. The media have fallen for the classic misdirect. While what Manning released demonstrated terrible misdeeds by the military, the military command tried (somewhat successfully) to distract by making Manning the evildoer. In fact, Bradley Manning simply told the truth or, more accurately, let the truth tell itself.

We are in deep trouble as a society. Telling the truth about evil should be expected not punished. The military, major corporations and politicians all want the truth to go away when, as it often is, inconvenient for them. They will make sure it goes away one way or another. Bradley Manning's fate was sealed the moment he made the moral decision. In this world, acting ethically is a very dangerous thing to do. We need more like Bradley Manning.