Awesome

I found this blog today while f-ing off at work. shhhh don't tell anyone.

Misery Loves Company

As most of you who read this know (ok, who am I kidding, if you are reading this, you know me), I suffer from chronic pain. It is probably related to having crohn's, which is an inflammatory auto-immune disease which affects my small intestine and colon, but the chronic pain mainly manifests itself in my spine, bursae, and tendons. As any kind of chronic condition goes, you have your good days and your bad days. Today is a bad day. Actually, this month has been a bad month, but today.......

Well anyways, as I was sitting at my desk trying to just not hate life, trying to not hate my body, trying to not feel sorry for myself, I came across an article in the Washington Post, which linked me to the American Pain Foundation website. They have cool links to how to advocate, resources and art about pain. Pretty cool, and mainly it helps to just know that #1: you are not alone, and #2 there are people worse than you are (I know, that sounds awful, but it does help quite a bit with battling self-pity and hopelessness).

I'm so lucky to have finally found a pain management doctor who treats me with respect, doesn't doubt me, or treat me like a drug addict, and actually cares about how I feel. Other doctor's have either given me very short term band-aid responses, or poo-pooed the idea that pain needs to be treated at all, especially if it is chronic (you know, grin and bear it because you don't have a choice in the matter anyways). So many people all over the world are suffering and are being ignored.

The rheumatologist that I was sent to told me that his wife, who has Ulcerative Colitis (similar to Crohn's) and who also suffered extra-bowel pain, swears by something called the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD). Has anyone out there heard about this diet? I have decided to give it a try, but am a little nervous. It takes great commitment and vigilance in what you eat. The diet basically amounts to: No sugars (besides fruit and honey), no grains, no starches, and no processed food. It also involves making your own yogurt, which overwhelms me when I think about it. If you know anything about this diet, let me know. I will post more about it once I start.

Blood, and ONLY Blood, Saves

I can't seem to get my jaw off of my chest. I am sitting here, mouth agape in horror at the newest ads being run by the Red Cross in an effort to get more young people to give blood. Please take a moment and watch the t.v. ads (click on the little tv in the upper right hand corner). I'll wait......

OK. See what I mean? WTF? The message: Young people, don't bother trying to take on any complex social issue that it plaguing our world. If you do, you will only end up making things worse. Ease your conscious, and do actual good by giving blood. If you try anything more complicated, you will: kill the forests, thwart efforts to eradicate AIDS, make kids lose their health insurance, and force monkeys to box (?). I read about this at Slate.com, which only gives the ad a C+, due to the author's support for the cause of giving blood. I hear ya, it's an important issue, but I still give this ad an F-. Come on Red Cross, you really think the best way to get young folks to give blood is by insulting their intelligence, and exploiting their compassion for issues other than yours? Their message is not "give blood" in addition to addressing the fucked up state of our world and the exploitation that happens in it. Their message is "give blood and DO NOTHING ELSE." I'd love to hear what you all think.

I TOLD you I love Bob Herbert

But seriously folks, as most of you know from past posts (Only Crazy Horse Need Apply, Don't Even Bother) this has been a growing issue in Ohio. First, with caseworkers taking it upon themselves to decide if someone's citizenship status should be suspect, then with the Ohio Legislature trying to address the issue by hurting everyone applying for Medicaid. Well, it looks like all of that is moot now, thanks to our Robin Hood in reverse U.S. Congress: Way to go assholes.

Budget-bill provision will hurt poor
Friday, January 06, 2006
BOB HERBERT

Buried in the federal budget bill is a nasty little provision, ostensibly aimed at immigrants, that will make it difficult for many poverty-stricken U.S. citizens to get the health care they are entitled to under Medicaid.

Advocates believe that the provision, which will require Medicaid applicants to document their U.S. citizenship –producing a passport or birth certificate – may be especially harmful to poor blacks, most of whom do not have passports and many of whom do not have birth certificates.

There are no exceptions, not even for people with serious physical or mental impairments, including Alzheimer’s disease.

The bill is scheduled for a final vote in the House on Feb. 1. The Medicaid provision seems to have originated with a pair of Republicans from Georgia: Reps. Nathan Deal and Charles W. Norwood. The idea, Deal told me, is to create a barrier against illegal immigrants who might slip into the Medicaid program by falsely claiming they are citizens.

You haven’t heard much about this threat to the republic because there is no evidence it is much of a problem. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has reported, an extensive study by the inspector general’s office of the Department of Health and Human Services "found no … substantial evidence that such false applications are actually occurring and (the inspector general’s office), accordingly, did not … recommend making the change that is included in the (budget) agreement."

The problem will come when poor people who are ill get sucked into a nightmare of documentation when their focus should be on their illness. The center noted: "Many individuals who require Medicaid coverage – such as people affected by emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, homeless people or those with mental illness – may be unable to get Medicaid promptly when they need it because they do not have such documents in their possession."

Many poor people live far from the cities or towns where they were born and do not have ready access to their birth certificates. And, as the center said, a large number of black women, especially in the South, were unable to give birth in hospitals because of racial discrimination. Many of them never received birth certificates for their babies.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who is a physician and the Senate majority leader, said the Senate went along with the House proposal because the "members did not feel it was an unreasonable provision." He said applicants in serious need of care would receive it and that Medicaid officials could accept the documentation of citizenship later.

I wondered what would happen to individuals who were bedridden, destitute, disoriented, enfeebled. They might receive care in theory. But would they really? Stepping on their care seems a heavy price to pay to address an issue that very few people view as a serious problem.

I asked Abel Ortiz, who advises Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia on health-care issues, if he was aware of any studies that showed whether significant numbers of illegal immigrants in his state were getting Medicaid benefits. He said no, although he added, "We have some cases that have happened."

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new provision would save more than $700 million over the next decade. But if illegal immigrants crashing the Medicaid program is not a big problem, where will the savings come from? How about from the reduction in enrollment of sick or otherwise troubled U.S. citizens who are poor and less than savvy about the arbitrary workings of the bureaucracy?

The budget bill is a good example of how the insiders and special interests get what they want in Washington, while ordinary people, who are supposed to be represented by the members of the House and Senate, get bludgeoned.

Some members of Congress wanted health-care savings, if there were going to be any, to be achieved by measures such as negotiating better rates with large drug companies and managed-care facilities. But that’s not the sort of thing that flies in this day and age. So the savings will be drawn like blood from the sick and the poor.

Someday the pendulum will swing back, and the government of the United States will become more representative and more humane. Meanwhile, as Lily Tomlin said, "We’re all in this alone."

Bob Herbert writes for The New York Times.


bobherbert@nytimes.com

How Short Our Collective Memory Is

How many members of Congress wouldn't be citizens if it weren't for "Birthright Citizenship"? I'm guessing around 99%. If they themselves weren't born from immigrant parents, then their parents were, or their parent's parents.

‘Birthright citizenship’ debate set to begin
Battle expected over bid to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegals

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:07 p.m. ET Dec. 26, 2005

NEW YORK - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface — kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.

At issue is “birthright citizenship” — provided for since the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.

House bill dies without vote
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.

“Most Americans feel it doesn’t make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen,” said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal’s proposal. “But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they’ll claim you’re punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn’t want to deal with that.”


Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as “a huge magnet” attracting illegal immigrants. He cited estimates — challenged by immigrant advocates — that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born to illegal immigrants.

“It’s an issue that we are very concerned about,” said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization that opposes any effort to revoke birthright citizenship.

“This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere,” she said. “But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream — it’s becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it.”

‘Red meat for conservatives’
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes Deal’s proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion.

“This is red meat for conservatives,” he said. “They throw out these issues they know aren’t winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do better job of educating people why it’s wrong.”

According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop illegal immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of Deal’s measure.

“Any issue that has a ‘damn right’ response, you can go with,” Tancredo said. “You ask if we should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this country and having a baby here who is an American citizen, and most people say, ‘Damn right.”’

GOP measure faces obstacles
However, Tancredo acknowledged that Deal’s measure faces major obstacles. Though he believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the proposal to come to a vote, Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or draw a veto from President Bush, who has sought to steer a middle course on some immigration issues.

The best strategy, Tancredo suggested, might be to avoid presenting the measure as a separate, stand-alone bill and instead add it to a broader piece of legislation that the Senate could not disregard.

Tancredo, Deal and others have noted that the United States is among the relatively few wealthy nations that allow birthright citizenship.

However, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said some Western European nations with different policies have suffered problems.

“Look at Germany — the children of guest workers are not citizens,” he said. “That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That’s the opposite of where we want to go.”

Challenge to 14th Amendment ‘far-fetched’
Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably strike down any measure that challenged the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantees.

“It’s a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal,” he said. “It’s not the kind of proposal that gets taken seriously by those who actually want to grapple with immigration issues.”

Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as “anchor babies” because — when they reach adulthood — they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but authoritative statistics are scarce.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609068/

Unicornhat: a federal offender?

December 30, 2005
Bill on Illegal-Immigrant Aid Draws Fire
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 - Churches, social service agencies and immigration groups across the country are rallying against a provision in the recently passed House border-security bill that would make it a federal crime to offer services or assistance to illegal immigrants.

The measure would broaden the nation's immigrant-smuggling law so that people who assist or shield illegal immigrants would be subject to prosecution. Offenders, who might include priests, nurses or social workers, could face up to five years in prison. The proposal would also allow the authorities to seize some assets of those convicted of such a crime.

Proponents of the legislation have argued that such provisions would make it harder for illegal immigrants to thrive in the United States by discouraging people from helping them. The legislation, which cleared the House this month, could also subject the spouses and colleagues of illegal workers to prosecution.

Several Republicans and Democrats in Congress say the measure appears unlikely to become law. But the legislation has touched off an outcry among groups that teach English and offer job training, medical assistance and other services to immigrants.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has written to members of Congress and called on President Bush to oppose the measure publicly. In Manhattan, scores of immigrants demonstrated against the bill last week. Here in the Washington area, a coalition of immigrant-services groups is planning rallies, visits to members of Congress and a letter-writing campaign to try to prevent the immigration bill from becoming law.

"We are going to fight this legislation," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa of Maryland, one of the advocacy groups rallying against the measure. "The immigrant community is very upset about this."

Mr. Torres's group offers job placement services and English classes to thousands of immigrants each year. On Wednesday, as he greeted day laborers looking for work at his center in Silver Spring, Md., Mr. Torres said he could not imagine being forced to turn away the needy because they lacked legal papers.

"We never ask for documentation," he said. "Our mission is to help anyone in need of service, regardless of their immigration status. We are proud of that."

Speaking for the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino, Calif., said the measure threatened church workers and doctors as well as ordinary citizens who provided urgent or life-saving assistance to illegal immigrants.

"Current legislation does not require humanitarian groups to ascertain the legal status of an individual prior to providing assistance," Bishop Barnes wrote this month in a letter to Congress. "The legislation would place parish, diocesan and social service program staff at risk of criminal prosecution simply for performing their jobs."

Supporters of the border-security bill say they are trying to crack down on a culture of indifference to the nation's immigration laws that has allowed 11 million illegal immigrants to live in this country.

The legislation would make it a federal crime to live in the United States illegally, which would turn millions of illegal immigrants into felons, ineligible to win any legal status. It would also stiffen the penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

"This legislation aims to prevent illegal immigration and re-establish respect for our immigration laws," said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, who introduced the legislation in the House.

"Those breaking the law will be held accountable," Mr. Sensenbrenner said, "whether they are smugglers cruelly trafficking in human beings, employers hiring illegal workers or alien gang members terrorizing communities."

President Bush has also praised the legislation.

"America is a nation built on the rule of law, and this bill will help us protect our borders and crack down on illegal entry into the United States," Mr. Bush said after the House passed the measure. "Securing our borders is essential to securing the homeland."

In his statement, Mr. Bush did not comment on the provision that is causing such a furor among churches and nonprofit groups. A White House spokesman referred questions about Mr. Bush's position on the matter to the Justice Department.

John Nowacki, a spokesman for the department, declined to answer questions about whether the Bush administration supported the provision.

White House officials have emphasized in recent weeks, however, that Mr. Bush still believes that any immigration legislation should include a guest worker program that would grant millions of undocumented workers the right to work temporarily in this country.

The House bill does not include a guest worker program, but the Senate is expected to consider such a plan early next year. A guest worker plan would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. If that were to happen, the measure outlawing assistance to illegal immigrants might be removed or end up having little effect.

But advocates for immigration said they were still deeply disheartened that Mr. Bush and members of Congress had not spoken out against the House measure.

"It's mind-boggling," said Julie Dinnerstein, deputy director for immigration policy at the New York Immigration Coalition, which sponsored last week's rally in New York.

"I think our courts should be focused on people who are doing terrible things," Ms. Dinnerstein said. "Do we need to send a bunch of priests or ministers or nurses to jail?"


Copyright 2005The New York Times Company