Finally the mysterious by-laws (private)

Wrote a little screed about finally receiving our HOA's long-missing by-laws.

All I can say is bwaahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!

If you are a friend or reader with normal size canine teeth (and not disguised in grandma's nightie, hoping for Red Riding Hood not to notice), e-mail me and I'll send it to you.

As for the rest of you who think you can use what I write here to hurt me or my family, GFY (I believe that's your preferred expression). Really, take your time and do it twice.

No I'm not dead, but if Obamacare passes, we all might be, sooner

Ugh, here I sit, way too late at night, praying my baby doesn't wake up in the middle of my typing this demanding my attention.

"Isn't she like 20 mos old??" you ask?

"Uh, YEAH, but with like four teeth coming in at once, and after getting so sick this winter she ended up in the ER for dehydration from puking, I think she's a little freaked-out and clingy."

So there you have it, what I've been doing for the past few months. Tending to sick kids, trying to teach them how to read, write, do arithmetic and otherwise be constructive members of society (so they can grow up and pay 84% of their income in taxes to pay down the mounting debt our generation is saddling them with, ahem...), and also dealing with a NEW crop of really obnoxious neighbors (I say "new" for those of you who are still poking around here who might remember the "old" crop in Boston that caused us angst and woe).

Starring in this horror flick have been the following:

HOA Homeowner Rep/Board Member from hell as "The Wolf"
All the other homeowners (other than yours truly of course) as "The Sheep"
My dear husband and I as the shepherds

In this story, the Wolf decides it's not only his job but his right to tell other homeowners (the sheep) how to eat the grass in the field, or, to step out of our little metaphor here for a moment, how they may or may not renovate their properties with their own money.

In our case, at issue was a backyard patio. Mind you, we were doing nothing out of the ordinary, a basic brick patio with a privacy fence around it, and it would not in any way touch anyone else's property or infringe on anyone's movement on or enjoyment of theirs. Near as we could tell, he just didn't want us to have a fence because we didn't ask HIM if we could. We asked the head of the HOA, the President of the Board, and he said "Sure, g'head," and given that our covenants just said to ask him, we figured we were in the clear. But "Neighbor Boy" as I like to call him had other ideas. He was pissed that we never asked him what HE thought, and he didn't like it one little bit. What if he couldn't back out of his driveway because of our fence (that sat two feet recessed into our property)? Well was he backing onto our LAWN as it was? Cuz that's kind of a NO-NO. No? He wasn't? OK, problem solved right? Wrong again. The fence would be made of cedar, and that's wood. And the problem with that would be what exactly? Oh, no one else has wood, it makes our house look "different." And that's a bad thing why exactly? But what about the two neighbors who clearly DO have wood fences in their backyards? You never had trouble with those right? Problem solved! There you go. Wrong again? Now the problem is the height of the fence? Why is that? Because you single-handedly "voted" (using a downloaded copy of some random condo rules that you updated and edited to make look like they had anything to do with our single-family neighborhood) to outlaw wood fences in the development? Uh-huh, ok, well, that's news to us, and everyone else who lives here, so I guess it's pretty much UNENFORCEABLE. Especially since the President of the HOA (who is also the builder) had no idea of this rule's existence EITHER. Next?

Oh yeah, this got bad. He was harassing us so much and so long, pretty much throughout our reno. project, that we hired a lawyer. We had to PAY someone to get him off our backs. Not fun.

The good news is, our patio (and fence) are in (and up) and there's nothing he can do about it. Of course it's not fun to live spitting distance to a psycho who thinks he has a say in what I do with my property---EVER---especially since he has a charming habit of cussing out my husband for avoiding his creepy gaze when they pass in the back alley, but I guess that's the price I pay for buying in an HOA neighborhood to begin with.

NEVER AGAIN, that's all I'll say about THAT.

But it has kept me busy. Very busy.

Oh I won't lie, I'm on FB all the damn time, but let's face it, that's EASY. How hard is it to fire of a quick comment or "like" something, especially with a smartphone? And how hard is it to come here and write anything long or meaningful about what the hell is going on in the world? It's so fucking DEPRESSING!

I go back and forth almost hourly between optimism and despair, often from hearing the same news. I can hear that Obama released "his" plan for healthcare and think in one minute "Oh goody, now people will see how truly PARTISAN he is, crafting this piece of shit plan BEFORE meeting with his supposedly bi-partisan summit" and in the next "What difference does it make if people see it, they can't do anything, no one in that Godforesaken shit-hole that is Washington gives a rat's ass WHAT the people think or say!

And all the while I can't let on to my very young kids that their mommy is quite literally petrified for their futures. I have to smile through it and endure endless questions from my precocious six year-old about the "news" and "Is the President nice mommy?"

For a while, I lied, or at least dissembled. Finally I caved and just started telling her the truth, that I didn't like the President, that he's spending all of us into the ground and that she and her sisters will probably have to pay for it. I explained taxes to her and she didn't like the idea one little bit (helps if you illustrate with cookies--give her two for a job well done, then take 2/3 of one back to give to her sister who didn't do shit to clean up the playroom, you know, cuz she exists and is "entitled" to her "fair share" of the cookie anyway. Oh yeah, my Emma HATES taxes now.

So I've told them the truth, but don't worry, I'm not totally abusive. I've signed them up for Chinese language classes on Saturdays so they can at least have a leg up by being able to communicate with their most likely new lords and masters someday (kidding--not about the Chinese classes, just the other thing).

But yeah, something had to give, and as per usual, it was blogging. Even with WP on the iPhone, I can't seem to git'er done. I think I have something good to say, but then I don't have time to type it on that tiny crappy keyboard. Or it's just easier to post to FB and let's face it, I get more traffic there anyway ;)

Still, I do miss the long-form. I write so many great posts in the shower that never make it to the screen, believe me. Sometimes I come up with a great idea, and the WSJ Review and Outlook page beats me to it. That ditty on the SMOTUS (Straw Man of the US)? Yeah, that was mine first, you just didn't know it.

*sigh*

And there she goes...2:16 and she's crying for me. Duty calls! I will try to get back sooner, but I won't be like our President and make promises I can't keep.

My baby is SIX?

How did that happen?



Remember when she looked like this?

Who loves the healthcare bill?

Trial lawyers of course!

On Saturday night with the House vote in favor of the health reform bill, the trial lawyers sliced themselves a nice little piece of that bonanza.

It's Section 2531 of the bill -- to be precise Section 2531(4)b -- and it provides as follows:

The new health bill will empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states that reform their medical malpractice systems. There are just two conditions: Those reforms must not "limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Which is like saying that we're going to encourage you to develop a personal weight loss plan that includes neither exercise nor changes in diet.

Think about it, someone actually wrote that down.

Do you think there are other ways to reform the malpractice system that would a) reduce healthcare costs b) reduce the cost of malpractice insurance? Because really, are there other reasons to "reform" the malpractice system? They couldn't possibly be suggesting the gov't will pay states to "reform" the system to pay lawyers MORE or INCREASE damage awards can they?? (Dear God, I think maybe they could be.....)

America, we just dropped the soap

Yup, it's official. We have two choices, bend over and take whatever comes our way, or remain standing and force them to get their hands dirty.

Yes, I'm talking about the pile of SHIT that passed the house tonight.

OH really? Newt, a "hack?"

Alright, I've about HAD IT with the troglodytes who have taken over the GOP, I really have! The really sad (no, *pathetic*) thing is they have no idea what hypocrites they are, and how they are nothing more than the right-wing version of the far-left kook fringe cult of personality that got Obama to the national stage. Oh, wait, they are different in one respect though--they've already revealed themselves NOT to be remotely interested in inclusiveness, not remotely interested in even TOLERATING differences of opinion on social issues, and because of their hard-core "purist" ideology on this front, are rapidly alienating people like me and leaving us without anyone to vote for at all.

It's a rough day when someone like ME finds myself unlikely to vote for a conservative candidate because I simply cannot abide their positions on social policies, but that's what it is because no longer are we dealing with candidates who are just "pro-life," that would be FINE, so am I! Now we're dealing with "You must be for the criminalization of abortion AND (here's the kicker) must find the notion that gays have the right to marry as threatening as terrorism.

(sound of the buzzer) EXCUSE ME????? WTF?

Sorry, can't go there with you.

And no it doesn't matter that people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh haven't specifically pushed for hard-core anti-gay legislation in their OWN records in public service, they are pushing for it NOW and they are backing candidates who DO, and they are sending out signals that any candidate, any voter in fact, who doesn't is not a "real" conservative. They have become as bad as the people who forced Joe Lieberman to become a third-party candidate, only they are the ones creating the third party.

There's just one problem....There aren't enough conservatives to split us into two parties! However "conservative" the nation might be, our people are not being well-served by either the GOP *or* the Palinotologists (or Paulians). They are all forcing us to make Faustian choices: align with their bigotry and ignorance, shunning science and civil rights OR align with fecklessness, frivolous spending, corruption and self-loathing. Oooooh, how to choose??

Puke.

Meanwhile, the punching bag is NEWT GINGRICH??? Seriously? The man is not only one of the smartest men in the GOP, he is one of the most realistic. I'll grant you, he should have gone farther to sound the alarm during the Bush years, but if you look at what we've got, for people to call him a "hack" while they label Sarah Palin a "visionary" is downright insane. That's like calling Obama a visionary and labeling Joe Lieberman a "hack" on the left, and I'm pretty sure the average conservative would balk at THAT.

Sarah Palin is the worst kind of cynic. She is using the media she loves to hate to shamelessly self-promote, even going on OPRAH of all places, and instead of LEARNING what she needs to know to truly help this country get out of the hole its in, she's decided her role is to be the conservative Evita. Well bully for her and shame on us for falling for it, but I'm crying foul. She does NOT represent ME or my interests, not by a long shot and I wish she'd go away so people like Paul Ryan can get the attention he so richly deserves.

Sarah Palin, go away

So I'm pissing off many of my friends on FB this week by criticizing (that's putting it mildly) Sarah Palin for her support of "Conservative" party candidates, particularly in NY's 23rd district. My gripe is that she is an outsider who doesn't have the first clue about what politics are like in that part of the country, never mind that state, and that she has no business inserting herself into that race in such a high-profile way that seems so obviously designed to garner attention for HER and her PAC than to get a win for Hoffman. I say that b/c Hoffman is trailing the GOP candidate who herself is trailing the Dem. in a district that used to go for the GOP, but went for Obama by 52% in the Presidential election!

Don't get me wrong, I think the GOP candidate is not even a RINO, she's more like a Democrat who hasn't made it official yet, I get that the local GOP is pandering a bit, duh. But I look at the bigger picture which is that the way to change party politics is not to "go rogue" and tear your party to shreds even MORE, especially during a time when critical decisions are being made that affect the future of the country, not just the local people in that district. The way to change them is to pressure the local party big-whigs between elections to change the platform or nominate people who really DO reflect the wishes of the people. To me, the townhall meeting screaming should be aimed in the direction of your own party just as much as the other guys if you're unhappy! And the truth is, I don't even think the people of that district ARE that unhappy with the selection. If they were, they wouldn't be polling for the DEMOCRAT who's running in such high numbers. But it seems to me that splitting the vote in this way and turning into the Ralph Nader of the right is not only going to hand another seat to a Dem in November, it's going to turn the GOP into a permanent minority as more moderate conservatives, finding they have nowhere to go (having been deemed not pure enough by their compatriots) end up either voting Dem. or not voting at all.

I think Palin forgets that Obama didn't win because there are more left-wingers than right-wingers, he won because he attracted MODERATES in the MIDDLE. That's not to say the GOP has to get all mealy-mouthed and fence-sitting, just that it needs to stop moving farther and farther to the RIGHT on wedge issues. There are pro-life Dems. and there are anti-gay marriage Dems. Somehow they manage as a party to include them ALL. Sure, the base gets all fired up and makes threats all the time, but really, where are THEY gonna go? To the GOP? Not in its current form, that's for sure!

I just see this as a losing direction for her and the GOP, I really do. What they need to be doing is finding a NEW center--one that's not halfway between Dem. and traditional GOP, but one that actually does offer NEW solutions, solutions that take into account the reality that urban Republicans and rural ones are NOT going to see eye-to-eye on social policies, and so either the tent needs to get bigger, or the subject needs to be left OUT of the platform altogether and they should return to TRUE conservatism which does NOT push any particular set of values or beliefs onto other people, but rather CHAMPIONS individual liberty to the fullest extent of the law.
Some of my FB friends have argued that she's never pushed policy that is anti-gay or pro-life, but I'm not sure that's the point. She has certainly given a ton of lip service to both, and I'm as pro-life as the day is long, I'm just saying that for many women--fiscally conservative women--the issue is still red-hot. Turning the party, a party that never was historically hard-core ANTI-abortion until the Bush administration, into one that flatly rejects any pro-choice candidate, or becomes hostile to them regardless of their other qualifications seems counterproductive. Even the Democrats haven't been THAT hard-core with guns! If they put into their platform positions on guns and God that were the polar opposite of what the GOP has in theirs on gays and abortion, we would justifiably be calling them radical left-wingers. So why is the reverse OK? Whether "policy" is sought or not, championing candidates who act like the only true "conservative" is one who would deny gays equal rights or who'd rather kick a woman out of the party than accept the fact that she's not convinced that life begins at conception (never mind that life on Earth began only 6000 years ago) seems, uh, ass-backwards?

Homeschooling killed my blog

I thought I knew what it would take. I thought it would be hard, but not borderline impossible. I (snobbily--if that's even a word) thought "Hey If those Duggars can do it with 17 kids, I can do it with THREE, right?!"

Ha! Every day if the past two months has presented a new and different opportunity for me to feel inadequate and underqualified. Every hour has felt like a day, and every night it's all I can do to meld with the couch and post snarky jabs at the administration, Republicans, Democrats, pundits, journalists, activists and "community organizers" on facebook. I can't even figure out how to post here and have that auto-post there or Twitter or I'd cover all three at once, how lame is that? Anyway, I'm still alive, it's just that being mommy, teacher, wife and COO of this house is taking it's toll!

What up mah' socialist!

Really? I mean REALLY??!
Let's examine shall we?
France - led by white Sarkozy
Germany - led by white Merkel
UK - led by so-white-he's-translucent Brown (whose name is ironic, but not descriptive of anything other than the stuff he shovels constantly)

Pretty sure Sweden is run by a white person, and I think if you pick
A socialist-leaning country on this planet today, chances are HIGH it's majority white; lazy, entitled, as innovative as a bedazzler but white.

All the really skeeeeeery socialists were really communists or facists ALSO, but guess what? Also white!
- Stalin
- Hitler
- Mussolini
Etc...

Castro isn't black either.

So exactly what am I missing here??

More makeup on farm animals

What color lipstick will they use this time?

B

y MICHAEL O. LEAVITT

Responding to a building wave of opposition to the "public option," the Obama administration is now signaling that it may dress up government health care in yet another set of clothes. This time, it will be called a health insurance "co-op." Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) is floating the idea, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has offered his initial support, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has listed three conditions it needs to meet.

Mr. Schumer's conditions are a national structure, federal financing, and a ban on federal appointees who have ties to the insurance industry. This "co-op" would be federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed. Expressing his opposition to smaller organizations and his demand for a national "co-op," Mr. Schumer says, "It has to have clout; it has to be large." He adds, "There would at least be one national model that could go all over the country," which would require "a large infusion of federal dollars."

I'm quite familiar with real co-ops. As a teenager, I filled my family's tractor with fuel purchased at a farmer's co-op, which was organized by local people to solve a common problem. My family got its electricity from a rural electric co-op. I was later a director of an "insurance reciprocal," a form of a co-op. Co-ops are a part of American culture: people uniting to solve common problems. What the Democrats are proposing bears little resemblance to this.

The Democrats are insisting that their version of a "co-op" wouldn't be government-run health care, but I ran Medicare and Medicaid as secretary of Health and Human Services, and I know this isn't true. When Washington provides the money, names the directors and ultimately pays the bills, government controls health care. Lobbyists will lobby, Congress will respond, and bureaucrats will decide who gets care, what drugs are prescribed, what procedures are covered, and how much money providers can charge. This is true for Medicare, it's true for Medicaid, and it would be true of Mr. Conrad's "co-ops."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is from Iowa farm country. He knows co-ops, and hopefully he also knows a plan for a government takeover when he sees it. He's said he's against a "public option," no matter what it's called. Yet Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, describing what he wants out of "co-op" legislation, spoke plainly, as reported by Politico earlier this summer, when he said, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objective of the public option."

View Full Image
Leavitt
Associated Press
Leavitt
Leavitt

Our health-care system needs real reform. We need to abolish the unfair tax that favors employer-sponsored insurance over self-purchased insurance. We need to foster a more vibrant private market with greater competition and choice. We need to make prices transparent and give consumers more freedom to pursue health-care value.

Every American needs to have access to affordable health insurance. But we don't need a "public option" that would jeopardize the employer-provided insurance of millions—an option that employers would be able to choose at their employees' expense. And we don't need the government running a bunch of so-called "co-ops," rationing care at taxpayers' expense.

The Democrats are getting worried that the Trojan Horse they have offered in the form of a "public option" has been spotted for what it is. So now they are looking for a new way to get government-run health care through the gates.

Let none of us be co-opted by their latest ploy.

Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and as governor of Utah (1993-2003).

Four half-truths on healthcare

iMore brilliance from Vinny on healthcare reform

I don’t know if you know this or not, but the insurance industries are regulated both on the state and the federal level. While the President would have you believe that this “reform” plan will usher in a new era of insurance company oversight. My question with this is the same as my question about Medicare: why not do it now?

Get on the regulating agencies and state regulators to do their damn jobs! If insurance companies are as out of control as we’re being led to believe, then it’s because the people responsible for oversight are failing. Miserably. Maybe it’s time to reform that!

Insurance companies don’t operate in an unregulated bubble, despite what our President would have you believe. If they’re harming consumers, punish them! If they’re profiteering on people’s pain, punish them! Regulate them with the same boldness and swiftness that the FCC went after Apple for not approving an App for the iPhone! Pretend it’s Microsoft, and that they must be stopped!

Read the whole thing. Now.

Healthcare is not Health

How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic (September 2009)

It is sickeningly clear that our policy-makers and President haven't spent any time talking to people like this or even thinking about the root of our healthcare problems. It's terrifing actually considering they are to blame for where we are today, at least as much as the other eeeevil villains usually cited.

Not-so-little-boy says "The Emperor is Nekkid!"

Vinny
has a brilliant post about Obama's healthcare plans. Lately I think it, he writes it.

Forget the post office analogy

Look, I oppose Obamacare as represented by the three bills circulating currently, but even I'm getting weary of hearing opponents toss out the tired old "They can't even run the Post Office!" criticism of government's ability to "run" things. If the big argument against "government controlled" healthcare is that they suck at running things, or that the quality of the product they turn out is sub-par, or that it's too expensive, or most accurately, ALL OF THE ABOVE, why not look at the largest, most expensive, most VITAL "single-payer" system we have in this country besides healthcare.

The government can't even run the damn SCHOOLS!

Oh, I realize people don't want to touch that subject, it's tantamount to saying people's kids are stupid and getting dumber by the day because most are trapped in that system. every time you even hint at voucher programs or some other form of privatization of the system, people act like you're trying to instigate "white flight" or leave minority kids or poor kids behind, or like you're just saying that average American kids are dolts because they come out of this system. It's a touchy subject.

But just because it's touchy for politicians doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about it out there in the blogosphere. We sure do talk about the crap-ass jobs schools are doing when the subject IS education, so why not now? Let's look at the particulars shall we?

Public schools educate MOST kids in this country and it's a "universal" system in that every American (and non-American, even illegal) kid walking around of school age in this country is "entitled" to a "free" K-12 education in this country. Not sure exactly where in the Constitution it ever said that, but no matter, it's the law of the land today, so here we are. And I would even argue that it's probably a good idea in a democracy to take steps as a government to ensure that you do have a literate society because people who can't read can't (or rather, shouldn't) vote.

Now I know the federal gov't doesn't pick up the whole tab, or even most of it, the states and localities do (thank GOD for small favors) but the fed DOES set standards and make laws that require those states and localities to meet those national standards in order to get the federal contribution, and in order for them not to come in and tell you you're running a school that violates someone's civil rights. So in essence, the fed "runs" public schools about as much as they'd "run" healthcare if universal single-payer were passed. Even in Canada the system is provincial, and I'm betting we'd have the same thing here too, so the analogy fits fine.

More particulars:
As of 2006, we were spending about 4.7% of GDP on public k-12 education in this country. In layman's terms: a "CRAPLOAD" of money.

16% of our students are dropping out and that number is CLIMBING despite us pouring more and MORE money into the system annually.

The federal government has steadily increased its involvement in the formulation of policy and curriculum of our public schools, despite questionable authority to do so (that's putting it mildly).

To summarize: We have a public system, run by the government--federal at the macro-level and state and local at the micro-level, but "gov't run" nonetheless, with a cabinet level position dedicated to "running" it and ensuring it be a permanent entitlement for our citizenry. This system costs more and more each year despite turning out less and less quality and FAILING UTTERLY in its mission at every increasing rates. And we the people are told that we need to spend MORE to make it better, we need to reward bad teachers and unions who coddle them and politicians who profit from coddling them and students who don't care and parents who don't take responsibility and if we DARE to argue that this is wrong or there are better ways, we are a) racist
b) unpatriotic
c) classist
d) selfish
e) all of the above

Sound familiar?? What are we being told now about healthcare?

But no one points to the schools. No one talks about how No Child Left Behind has nearly crippled good teachers and students and has completely left behind the "gifted" amongst our children (those who might be the ones to invent our next great energy source, or figure out a way to bring peace to the Middle East, or just write a screenplay that doesn't bore us to tears). And no one highlights the obvious flaws in asking the same government that can't do any better with education despite constantly asking for more and more and MORE money, to take over ANOTHER 1/6 of the US economy.

Teachers are far less expensive to train and to hire than doctors and nurses, they work fewer hours and have more time for continuing education and research, as stressful as their jobs are, they aren't LITERALLY dealing with life and death issues in their classrooms every day, nor are they at risk of being sued if they make a mistake or even if they just fail to teach a kid anything remotely useful. As much paperwork as they have to do, it pales by comparison to what doctors must do just to get reimbursed for Medicare as it is, and they get summers and weekends off. If the government still has trouble hiring and keeping GOOD (never mind excellent) teachers, how do you think they'll do when doctors and nurses are on salary to them as well?

The only logical answer is that they have purposely run our schools so poorly in hopes that we really are stupid enough to "buy" that having them run healthcare too would SAVE us money, never mind that it would "improve" quality of or access to care.

I'll tell you what, the day there are no high school dropouts in America I'll consider supporting them as viable candidates to run my healthcare, but until then, no thanks. Next time someone tosses out "they can't even run the Post Office," do them one better and remind them about the bang up job the government does "running" our schools. If that doesn't scare the piss out of them, nothing will.

What's good enough for us isn't good enough for them

Well well well! How very INTERESTING. The Republicans voted for the amendment, gee, wonder why
the Dems didn't? What's good enough for us isn't good enough for them (again?)

What does this tell you about that public option they say will be "as good or better" than what we have today? Either they haven't a clue how good the care we already have IS, or they think it's slightly better than a shit sandwich, and that's good enough for us to keep because why else would they be reassuring us we'll be able to keep it even if they get their public option passed?

Do these people seriously believe we are THAT DUMB??? (Well, maybe, they don't send their kids to the same schools as us plebes either).

I'm having visions of special hospitals and doctors for "party leaders" reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. Why is that? Hmmm...I wonder.....?