Cold Spaghetti

All those rumors about Obama plagiarizing are true. He has most certainly been plagiarizing. His catchy phrase, “Yes We Can,” is lifted directly from Bob the Builder. No word on whether Bob is pressing charges, although Lofty threated a suit if Obama used, “Uh… yeah, I think so!”

I can’t get the news of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence out of my mind.

Why were we so quick to recognize Kosovo? What importance does it hold? Is there some sort of latent guilt for the years of Balkan wars where so many were tortured at the hands of the Serbs? (Yes, yes, atrocities occurred on all sides. However, the Croats, the Bosnians, and the Albanians all suffered many, many more deaths — both civilian and military — at the hands of the Serbs. Some of these atrocities occurred in front of UN troops assigned to the protect them.) What would our stance be if other ethnic majorities within areas of other countries — the Kurds in Turkey/Iraq, for example — declared independence? Didn’t the treaties that stopped NATO attacks in Kosovo imply some sort of intent of keeping Serbia together, similar to the federation-style set-up used with Bosnians? I don’t speak from a place of expertise here… I’m just trying to get my head around it.

Moreover, I was really moved by this book and what it means for a civilian population to be targeted and isolated. I’ve been addicted to her for months. I do not have faith in NATO or any other allied group to protect the vulnerable. The genocidal massacres at Srebrenica occurred in front of UN Security forces, who rolled back without once standing in protection of the civilian populace. This happened a year after Rwanda, four years after seeing what the Serb forces did in Vukovar. We’ve shown that we cannot bring ourselves to say the word “genocide” even when we know it is occurring because we’d be obliged to act. It makes me think that the only way to stop genocide from occurring is to help negotiate healing and understanding, not encourage nationalism and independence.

Though I arrived shortly after 8am, had a friend in line not spotted me, I may not have made it in. As it was, we got in on the tail end and were rewarded with fabulous seats opposite from the speaker’s podium and high enough above the media throng to take it all in.

Boy, that man can talk. I was impressed.

I’m too cynical to be an Apostle, but have no doubt that he’s been my choice since Edwards dropped out of the race. After hearing him speak, I may have even been swayed to his camp even if Edwards had stayed in. Maybe. He’s not my vision of the perfect candidate, but of the playing field he’s the best candidate hands down. I only hope he can do even a piece of what he promises.

He promised a lot: 100-year storm protection starting in 2011*; restoration of wetlands and barrier islands; no cronyism in Federal Government positions; FEMA director a nonpolitical position (similar to the Director of the Federal Reserve); tax incentives for businesses opening in rebuilding areas; a six month turn-around for Road Home applicants; a new city hospital and new Vets hospital; loan forgiveness for MDs willing to serve here; speeding up $58m approved in Congress to rebuild schools; $250m for teacher programs to give bonuses and incentives for teachers to come here for 3-year positions; college tuition tax credits each year of college; and educational systems that embrace all learning (arts, music, dance, poetry). Phew!

The stump speech was strong; followed with his contract — “we will invest in you, and you will invest in us.” It was stirring, motivational, and exciting. He made me forget how much optimism has been beaten out of me and for a minute, really think that the world he envisions is maybe, possibly… possible?

Some may have thought I’d be on the Clinton bandwagon, since she’s the female in the race. Not so. For one, she’s a Republican. She votes for war, she stood by her husband’s disastrous “reform” of welfare, and she went soft on universal health care. Second, I am constitutionally adverse to supporting the continued control of the Executive Branch of our government by two families into a third decade. Third, black men voted, served in the U.S. Senate, and were elected in the House of Representatives before women, so I figure electing a black man into the White House before a woman just falls in line with our traditions (okay, this is glib, but it’s still sort of an interesting bit of history). If I needed another reason, Ann Coulter may be endorsing Clinton and while I am all for the Kumbuyah mentality, I can not ever see a day when supporting anything Coulter endorses is a good thing. For other reasons to vote Obama and not Clinton, read this.

—
*I swear I heard him say 2011, following his saying that we “can’t gamble” the protection of New Orleans, but I’m not sure my ears can be trusted. For a minute, I heard the crowd shout “Let’s Pretend” and then “Let’s Begin” before figuring out that the clamor was actually the words “Yes We Can,” the official Obama fan shout.

UPDATE: Read Obama’s speech HERE. Really, read it. It’s worth it.

One of the people I most enjoyed was a wife of one of Paul’s cooler co-workers, who is the Department head of the Math Department of a local high school and teaches AP Calculus and AP Statistics. She and I were discussing the importance of women in Mathematics and Sciences when she came out with this: “I have a class of 28, and each year, about 21 of them are female and all of them consistently outperform their male peers. Our student government is always female. So what I want to know is: WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING IN COLLEGE????”

A brilliant question placed so nicely within the observations and experiences of someone who faces it everyday. What is happening to women?

Once upon a time, Paul and I made similar observations about friends and acquaintances, noticing that they shared the same college: we joked that this particular university had a curious way of beating dreams and aspirations out of women. This particular university is also well-known for having faculty who openly have flirtations and affairs with students — and write about it — and maybe this isn’t a coincidence. What happens in college, and what happens after, and why is it so toxic to the promising potential in the talents of women?

Maybe it isn’t necessarily what happens in college, but is instead what happens afterward? She gets hired by Company X and gets stuck working with the guy with the roaming hands. This guy is pervasive everywhere and is typically one that everyone seems to like (or is maybe tolerated out of some strange peer-pressure fear), and while it’s well-known that he is inappropriate, he remains untouched by an indifferent management (make the environment more friendly to women? what is that a requirement of management?) Worse, he may be her boss. Or, her boss totally ignores her, calling in for the first time on the day she resigns. She gets paid less than her male peers, receives less promotions, and is hounded on her personal life (marriage and kids makes a working girl distracted, ya know.) Are all of these things illegal? Well, maybe, but they are all active and real… as part of corporate culture as power ties and pumps. Maybe my use of the word ‘corporate’ unfairly fingers business, which is not my intent: it is even worse in academia.

So what does the world offer to women, professionally? Well, I’d argue it offers all that it offers to a man — at a reduced pay, of course — IF the woman is willing to act like a man.

For a woman to be successful, she must remain aloof, act tough, rough, and hard (which will label her a “cold bitch” but is preferred to the alternative, patronizing treatment). She is constantly observed for signs of female-ness: did she marry, buy a house, or (gasp!) have a baby!? These are all connected to risk within the robot-male business model, where one must have no emotion to any thing but the job, dedicate all time to it, and reject life outside of work. Forget that 30 hours a week of work is the most efficient, connected to more completed in a work week, healthier employees, and a better overall company: you are required to be at work, even if you’re not doing anything at all, 12 hours a day, everyday. Not performing at this level is a feminine slip, a sign of weakness, and shows lack of dedication. Want to push back that 4pm meeting to 3pm so that you can make Tommy’s soccer game? Tisk, tisk… your priorities are all messed up. (Incidentally, if your male boss makes the same request, he’s just “being a good Dad.”)

A day of sexual harassment, hours and hours of extra work with little reward, pay out of whack with peers, and diminished opportunities for advancement… who would willing and openly choose this life? Staying home with babies (who actually need to be with their Mothers for more than the ridiculous 6-week window) does not sound like a “choice” but a rational path made by smart women who are lucky to have enough resources available to them so that they do not have to endure the torture of a sexist, hostile work environment.

If the work world was structured to be family friendly: to offer part-time opportunities with benefits (or have university health care so that benefits were not a requirement for families), and work options that allowed for quality jobs with less hours and more flexibility; if maternity leave was reasonable; if childcare was affordable and on-site for nursing mothers… in short, if women and families were valued, then I believe more women would remain in professional positions in all fields. Women “choose” to leave the work force because there is no other choice to make. I don’t think it a coincidence that so many women have part-time independent businesses, photography studios, craft endeavors, design consultant services: these are flexible areas where women can control their professional lives. Signs that women want to continue to develop themselves outside of their family identity and responsibilities, but cannot do so in the professional world. So they look for other places to do so.

So what happens to women to take them out of mathematics and sciences (and the professional world, in general?) Well, they get beaten. Enough licks and anyone with a ripcord will pull it to get out.

The whole situation sucks for men, too, who are expected to work, expected to find well-paid employment to support a family, expected to work too much, and expected to not notice that they are missed at home. What would it take to re-think how we work and who we expect to work? Is it too much to encourage young women to think beyond a life in homemaking and allow men to pursue art or craft-making without looking at him as irresponsible?

We met a candidate for public office today. Briefly, but we met. I shook her hand, took her flyer, and engaged in 3 seconds of conversation where she politely complimented our family, street, and neighbors. She seemed like a perfectly nice, pleasantly scattered lady who would make a very good neighbor. Just the type to swap recipes, seek out for child-rearing advice, or ask to watch the house while you go out of town.

Public office? Well. Maybe not.

It’s not about the issue of the first and last names being the same, really. And it’s not anything about her, personally. It’s not because her circa-1995 web-page has more typos than some of the worst college freshman papers I’ve ever read. And not because I’m completely perplexed about what that “post graduate degree in Health Care Administration” means (do you mean an MPH? that’s a graduate degree… so do you mean another doctoral degree, in addition to the PhD and MD that it says she already has from LSU?)

No, it’s not about any of those things (although each concerning in their own way). The reason that she’s unfit for Senate is because of seriously whack things like her thoughts on how to improve health care in Louisiana. This is her “healthcare plan,” in its entirety, from start to finish:

Creating effectiveness within our Healthcare system, electronic data capture, standardization of insurance forms, electronic submission, “smart cards” to help both providers and patients with demographic and eligibility data, utilizing the quality care organizations in our state to identify at risk groups, i.e. diabetes and enhance intervention programs.

It’s ridiculous on many levels. One of them is the shocking realization that this mess of a run-on sentence was written by such a highly decorated scholar. Yet another comes out of actually trying to understand what she is saying (which takes some work) and realizing how alarming it is to think that it came from someone working in medicine. (As an ophthalmologist. In private practice. Apparently, that is what you do when you have at least two, and possibly three, major terminal degrees.)

What I want to run away with here is the “card” system mentioned in the tangled web above. This, along with her gag-worthy proposal (mentioned randomly on her neighborhood flyer) of making Charity run both private and public clinics “to make it financially independent,” speaks to a larger issue within healthcare. Namely, that health inequalities (which are extreme, more on this in a moment) has lines of color and privilege — and that this system works for those in the privileged group and they want to keep it that way.

A card system would facilitate that process a little faster. Mr. and Mrs. WealthyWhites present their card and are ushered to the private facility where they have no wait time, spend plenty of time with their doctors, and walk away with oodles of ultra-thorough tests and procedures. Mr. and Mrs. PoorPersonOfColor present their card — whoops! underinsured? or uninsured!? sorry, it’s this way for you — and off they go into the crowded masses to wait (a long time) for misdiagnosis, extended morbidity, and early mortality. If this all seems crass, I assure you, it’s not. I’m speaking right out of the science. A lot of it.

Take for example some very basic measures within black-white disparities. Here’s one. The ratio of black to white infant mortality was greater at the close of the 20th century than at any other point in the preceding 100 years — and that the last 50 years saw a 90% increase in that disparity (1.6 in 1950 to 2.5 in 2000). How about mortality from coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and cirrhosis of the liver? All of these (black:white ratios of mortality) were larger in the late 1990s than in 1950*.

And yes, those diligent public health folk have run themselves ragged trying to find reasons to explain the widening gap in disparities. Focusing on infant mortality, one thing that is clear is that a key to reducing infant mortality disparity means reducing the similarly widening gap between whites and blacks regarding low birth weight and very low birth weight babies. In an effort to get at birth weight, public health folk have studied it from a number of vantages… Maybe it’s more preterm births! More multiple pregnancies! Whites have more access to abortions! Access to medical care! Personal habits! Genetics!… All of these theories are discussed, studied, and dissected widely in the literature. Yet:

“The etiology of black-white disparities in low birth weight is complex and is not explained entirely by demographic risk factors such as maternal age, education, or income (8). Factors that might contribute to the disparity include racial differences in maternal medical conditions, stress, lack of social support, bacterial vaginosis, previous preterm delivery, and maternal health experiences that might be unique to black women (9).”

In other words, we have no idea what causes these health disparities. But we do know (almost by process of elimination) that it isn’t anything that we can measure well. These days, best science is suggesting to us that those “other” things: stuff like “stress” and “health experiences… unique to black women” could be the culprit. Darn those difficult to quantify, endogenous little factors!

Personally, I see a “smart card” that can quickly streamline the haves from the have-nots to be a “unique experience” — one that might be “stressful”. It might also fit into a pattern of how things tend to sort out in a racially divisive environment. Like how they might fall out between public and private schools. Or hospitals. Or ophthalmologist offices.

But I digress. Actually, pregnant women can get health care in this country. It doesn’t make an impact on closing disparity, but at least it’s something. (I shudder to think of what it would look like if there was no WIC.) An even brighter note: as of last May, in Louisiana, women don’t even have to show documentation to get prenatal care. (I know, I couldn’t believe it passed, either! Hoorah!) But as of this morning, it’s a bummer for their kids.

But back to those disparities. That pesky infant mortality. So what are we doing to work on it? What cutting-edge research is happening to better understand and solve the problem? Well, earlier in the year, the American Journal of Public Health published a study on just that. Here’s what they found:

“Ninety-seven percent of grants were for developing new technologies, which could reduce child mortality by 22%. This reduction is one third of what could be achieved if existing technologies were fully utilized. There is a serious discrepancy between current research and the research needed to save children’s lives. In addition to increased research on the efficacy of treatment, there is an even greater need for increased research on delivery and use of technology.”

In other words, putting more layers of technology on to the very real and very great health challenges that face us does not solve any problems. (So, even if the aforementioned “smart card” is a completely altruistic method of making the life of a hospital benefits coordinator — or an over-indulged ophthalmologist who doesn’t want to mess with clients who can’t pay — easier, it’s a waste of money that will have no impact on health outcomes.) Further, we have got what we need at our finger tips — we just need to figure out how to get it used appropriately.

So, sorry, MM. I can’t give you my vote.

I’m stopping here. Coming soon: the universal health care rant.

—

*Check out the MMWR article for some of these stats. Also see David Williams’ Race, SES, and Health, Ann NY Acad Sci, 1993; 896, 173-188.

A month ago, we agreed to buy Will a pair of Crocs. They are *the shoe* at Abeona, loved by kids and teachers for the on-off ease involved. Will’s interest in having a pair of Crocs was not unlike the episode of “The Simpsons” where Bart and Lisa want to go to Splash Mountain — except Will was even more insistent. Our neighbors told us that the Hallmark in Lakeside Mall (out in Metairie) had them at about $25, a few bucks less than the $30 usually charged. So, on the Sunday after St. Patricks, we decided to venture into the suburbs.

It was a mess. We didn’t realize that the day after St. Patrick’s is St. Joseph’s Day — a parade day — and got caught in the Italian-Irish Parade. We ended up hanging out in the Target/Sears Mall, having an awful food court lunch, and generally being miserable that we were in a mall. Getting to Lakeside was out of the question. Nearly everytime we go to the ‘burbs, we ask whether it is really worth it. When we went home, we looked to our local stores for where they may carry Crocs.

We didn’t have to think too hard. Haase Shoe Store, on Oak Street, across the street from our much loved Oak Street Cafe and Miss Norma’s Queen of the Ball Snowballs — would they have them? We stopped in after picking up the kids from school the next day… and YES! They had a wonderful Croc display, we were helped by the owner (the proud recipient of the coveted Golden NuNu), and after a personable visit, left with two pairs (one for Will, one for Paul) and a balloon for Will. The shoes were $30, a few bucks more than out in the ‘burbs. Which made us do some reflecting. What did it mean to spend $10 more? For those few extra dollars, we stayed within our neighborhood, kept money in our local economy, showed support for the small stores that make up so much about what we love in our community, and so much more.

In Lima, there are groups of hard-working entrepreneurial entertainers who hop onto the collectivos that transport busy Limeños around town. They tell jokes (usually incredibly dirty), pass around bags of hard candy (“it’ll cure your diabetes!”), and basically do whatever they can to make their kept audience laugh and earn a few cents. I remember hearing the hard sell once or twice. I always was prepared to give some change. Why? Because they pointed out the obvious: “No me hará rico; no le hará pobre.” Meaning: it won’t make me rich, and it won’t make you poor. Since then, I have used this phrase to put so many things into perspective.

What does it mean to spend a little more in ways that matter? Aren’t there things more important than saving a few cents in a mega-mart? Shouldn’t we look for ways we can invest in our communities, build our local resources, and support the things that really matter?

Living in New Orleans has made it easy for us to be better, live more closely to our principles. Spending a little more where it counts the most… no los hará ricos; no nos hará pobres. It won’t make them rich, it won’t make us poor.

“Want to read one of the exams? You can read my answer key.”

“Okay… although it’s not very exciting.”

“Not exciting? The logistics of what to do when 50,000 people come pouring into another country… I think it’s fascinating!”

“I already know what to do.”

“Yes?”

“Give 1.5 billion to Halliburton.”

It is secret to no one that I am totally on board with debt relief for impoverished countries. I am gung-ho for our MTV generation to learn about the world’s injustice, even if through the lips of celebrities.

But honestly, give me a break. The Live 8 show is patronizing. It’s white. It’s privileged. It’s a money-maker for the music industry. It’s an opportunity for celebrities to feel they are redeeming their lives of over-indulgence. Where are the Afro-Caribbean performers who have been singing about these issues for years? Where are artists from Africa? Where are their voices? Live 8 is an opportunity to share the stage with artists from the very nations that the effort is poised to “help”. Instead, they have been shut out. They were denied the opportunity to gain any celebrity, to speak their own stories, to share in the great profit enjoyed by Western artists.

So what is Live 8, then? It seems like an opportunity to use the faces of suffering African children to lift the careers of aging white men and other super-rich stars. The plight of the poorest people of the world is exploited, while celebrities can pat themselves on the back at a job well done. The continent of Africa (and the diverse, 50+ countries within) are essentialized to one bleak, sad, pathetic, uncivilized place — in need of the white, Western, “civilized” societies of the world to come to it’s rescue.

Live 8 says: “We don’t want your money. We want your voice.” What does that mean? The world is no better off than what is was at the first Live 8, 20 years ago. In fact, the numbers of the impoverished have risen, debt is higher, and in the face of HIV, re-emergence of diseases like polio and TB, the outlook bleaker. Are we ready to do what is necessary to bring opportunity to others?

Are we prepared to abandon cheap goods, Wal-Mart, Target, and the like, whose goods come from maquilas and other sweat shops around the globe? Are we ready to pay to support only fair trade coffee, fruits, and vegetables? Are we ready to forgo our bling-bling and give up diamonds, which are purchased cheaply out of the disease, maltreatment, and death that are West African diamond mines? Are we ready to bring down drug company profits, CEO millionaires, and industry monopoly? Are we each ready to give up a little of our slice of the pie?

In a world of finite wealth and resources, bringing others out of poverty, despair, and certain death means that we with excess must be willing to cut our gains. I find it somewhat ironic that the message of debt relief comes from stars like P-Diddy, Jay-Z, and other artists known for the high-count carats they shower themselves with — not from their work as humanitarians, educators on world affairs, or spokespersons for the vulnerable.

Pardon me if I choke a bit on Live 8’s efforts in international aid.

On the 20 year anniversary, the events of December 2-3, 1984 remind me of my personal commitment to making the world a better, safer, world for all people. I believe that my privilege of education, resources, and connections means that I have the duty to speak out against the wrongs of the world. This tragedy, and the tragedy that continues, is one of them.

A wonderful site to learn about the disaster and on-going ramifications:

http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/what_happened.htm

A good site to learn about the history of Union Carbide and its involvement:

http://www.bhopalexpress.com/facts.html

To quote the bumper sticker: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”