This is by Kobayashi Issa (1763-1827):
Writing shit about new snow
for the rich
is not art.
Jeri Bilbo would seem a natural supporter of the Democratic Party’s vow to protect the social safety net during the spending-cut debate in Washington.
Her husband gets disability payments and government-funded health care after leaving his dock-worker job in New Orleans because of rheumatoid arthritis. They live in a drafty farmhouse in southern Mississippi having lost their home to foreclosure.
“It will keep the rain off us, but it won’t keep the cold off,” said Bilbo, 60.
Yet Bilbo, who registered as a Republican to vote as a high school senior, said she’s stuck with the party out of tradition. She’s an example of the contrarian nature of U.S. politics, where people often vote against their economic self-interest because of family, culture or such issues as abortion and guns.
Poplarville and Picayune, the two largest cities in Pearl River County, are dotted with payday loan businesses and inexpensive retailers such as Family Dollar Stores.
Glenda Hebert, 74, a Poplarville resident, says she voted for Romney and has been a lifelong Republican, even with her dependence on government anti-poverty programs.
Asked why she’s a Republican, Hebert’s answer is succinct: “Because I’m a Christian.” She said she attends an Assembly of God church and blames Obama for “murdering all the babies with abortion” and worries that “pretty soon he’ll be taking the guns away.”
People in the South tend to be concentrated in “donor” states, those that receive more federal tax dollars than they contribute, Heberlig said. “If you listen to the rhetoric, you’d think it’d be just the opposite,” he said.
Democrats also vote at times against their own economic interests, since the representatives they send to Congress have generally been supportive of raising taxes. Among the 20 wealthiest congressional districts in the last Congress, 12 were represented by Democrats and eight by Republicans.
I hate to tell you this, Atrios, but women are generally smaller, weaker and slower than men. That's why even feminists don't bitch about sexually segregated sports tours. With rare exception, having women in combat means male soldiers will have to expend energy protecting women that they'd probably prefer using to defend themselves. What could possibly go wrong with that? Also, last I heard, combat was considered a hostile work environment.You know, Atrios, it must be so fun sanctimoniously denying reality like you do. You're really good at it. No wonder you consider so many other people to be assholes.
Among most mammal species, males are bigger and stronger because they fight more. Does this mean that males are better fighters and would that be a reason not to allow females to fight in armies? Does the use of military weapons such as AR-15's negate the physical advantage of males and are females just as likely as males to use those weapons to kill the males/females of the hated foreign armies? Does Atrios - or anyone - know the answer to these questions? Anyway Atrios will apparently ignore the questions.
The older, and still prevalent, anti-feminist arguments about women in combat are that women are naturally and inherently incapable of the aggression that is required, that women are naturally and inherently slower, weaker and smaller than men and therefore will not be of value in military combat, and that men are (perhaps also naturally and inherently) always going to be chivalrous towards women so that female soldiers are a burden-to-be-protected in combat, not an asset. The anti-feminists also don't think we can mix sexes in the military, and point out military rape as the unavoidable outcome. How that goes with the chivalry argument is usually left unexplained. Finally, the anti-feminists say that mixed-sex military troops cannot have the necessary bonding which only works among men.
NEW ORLEANS -- Starting Feb. 1 Louisiana will stop offering hospice care services to most patients on medicaid.
The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals is eliminating the service to families in the state due to state budget cuts.
Critics are up in arms.
The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals say the elimination of hospice care for medicaid patients will mean nearly $3.3 million in savings this year alone. In 2014, it'll mean $8.3 million in savings.
However, Burns believes the state will end up paying much more with terminally ill patients forced to turn to local hospitals.
“Hospice is not just about managing death,” emphasizes Craig C. Earle, MD, MSc, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, Massachusetts). “High-quality palliative care can be of great benefit to a patient, and that benefit accrues over time.” Hospice is beneficial in several realms, including the patient's quality of life, patient and family satisfaction, and cost effectiveness.8–12 One study even indicated that hospice significantly extended survival for patients with lung, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer compared with patients who did not receive hospice care.13
The Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) has also noted that the opportunity for a comprehensive palliative care program increases with longer hospice stays.4 Researchers have found that services as bereavement counseling, palliative care, and respite for caregivers was experienced by patients and families who used hospice for at least 7 to 8 weeks12 and that the maximum benefit of hospice is achieved by a stay of 80 to 90 days.8
The cost savings of hospice has been documented in several studies. A meta-analysis published in 1996 indicated that the use of hospice saved as much as 40% of health care costs during the last month of life and 17% over the last 6 months.10 In a later study, the health care costs specifically for patients with cancer were 13% to 20% lower for those who had received hospice care than for those who had not.11 Similar findings were reported in 2007: hospice use was found to significantly reduce Medicare costs during the last year of life by an average of $2,309 per hospice user.12 In addition, Medicare costs were reduced further the longer an individual was enrolled in hospice. Cost savings were more pronounced for patients with cancer than for patients with other diagnoses, especially for longer stays.12
Somehow, motherhood had slyly changed us. We went from basking in the rights that feminism had afforded us to silently pledging never to exercise them. Nice mommies don’t talk about abortion — it is relegated to the dark and dirty corners of our conscious, only to emerge favorably in the voting booth. Yes, we believe in a woman’s right to choose. No, we don’t actually believe she should use it in the face of women choosing to have their children. This is the feminist mother’s greatest taboo.The feminist mother's greatest taboo? Based on the writer's own feelings, she makes a statistical assertion, the kind that usually requires a little bit of research. I would think.
The seven UN member states that have not ratified or acceded to the convention are Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Tonga, and the United States. The United States and Palau have signed it, but not yet ratified it.I went looking for the reason the United States decided to agree with Iran on something!
Ratifying CEDAW would lend the United States' prestige and credibility, not only to the treaty, but also to the CEDAW Committee's rulings. Here are snapshots of some of those rulings:
Told China to decriminalize prostitution.Criticized Mexico for a "lack of access … to easy and swift abortion.Criticized Ireland for the Catholic Church's influence of attitudes and state policy.
Told Libya to re-interpret the Koran in the light of CEDAW.
CEDAW is fundamentally flawed. No reservations could protect our laws and culture from its skewed belief that there is no difference between men and women. The United States should not give our prestige, nor subject our citizens, to CEDAW.