Ok, to give you an up-front warning: this post will be mainly political, with some more Sophia cuteness at the beginning. So, read past Sophia stuff at your own risk. I'm NOT responsible for anyone getting offended. :) Now with that said, let's talk more about how cute Sophia is.
Today in Church, I tried hard (as every Sunday) to keep her quiet and reverent. We've been working on various things at home to help her get more reverent (like singing "Andachtsvoll, Friedlich Leis" a primary song). So, today at first she struggled to fold her arms etc. during the sacrament prayer. I finally got her to do it, just for her to shout out really loud "Amen" at the end of the prayer, and then one more time, just because it's fun. After that we proceeded to look at picture of Jesus during the Sacrament. She saw the picture of Jesus praying in Gethsemane and got all excited, saying 'Jesus, Jesus'. Then she started kissing the picture. Then she insisted I kiss it, too, leading me to having a real Greek-Orthodox moment there. Anyway, sacrament continues, and Sophia starts getting a little restless again, so I whisper into her ear "Andachtsvoll", just for her to start singing the song. The fun continued when she remembered that it's funny to talk while holding your nose closed, or saying 'Quesadilla' (this is Sophia's personal joke - for some reason she thinks it's funny to say this word). Also, when we looked at a book about a man getting baptized, Sophia had to comment on the lack of close by saying 'Jesus Nackedei'. She notices a lot of nackedeis these days - Adam and Eve, Jesus, Papa, Sophia, etc. Anyway, overall she really was quite reverent and well behaved, and we only had to go outside once. I'm just glad she's so full of ideas, and energy and life and laughter.
Now, on to the political stuff. This is where you may want to stop reading if you can't stomach my political stuff...
Actually though, I don't have a whole lot to say. I just read a new article, and it kind of went along with a few thoughts I had the other day after visiting the YMCA pool. Basically I concluded that even though I'm not opposed to certain government-run things, or 'socialism' per se or however we want to define those things, it seems to me more and more that it's just a bad idea in the US. Not because I think it can't be done, but because I think the US can't do it. So, let me explain what I mean.
Let's take health care. In Germany, the services provided by the few general health insurances is actually regulated by the government. I know, here in the US people would die of a heart attack thinking that the government has that much power, and everyone would be convinced that it would be crappy. Well, I don't think it is in Germany. Actually, everything that's reasonable and some more is usually covered, and while I'm sure the system isn't a 100 percent perfect, and that now and then there as been a problem, overall people are happy with it, and overall it works really well. I've never had a problem in Germany getting a service that I needed. And I know a lot of the routine stuff that you get in Germany, you don't get here, even with some of the finest insurances (an example would be 2-3 Ultra sounds in Germany vs. barely getting 1 paid here). So, seeing Germany, convinces me that a government can do a decent job at regulating big, important things. Yet, I think if the US would attempt the same thing here, it probably would end up awful. Why? I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure out why I think this, but maybe my next story could illuminate this more.
I went to the YMCA the other day to take Sophia swimming. We had barely been in the pool for, I don't know 10 minutes, when the 10.000 life guards blew their whistle, and everyone got out of the pool. I was a bit confused because I didn't see a single cloud, or anything else that explained why we had to get out. So, I asked. The explanation: It's an Ohio State law that once every hour, everyone has to come out of the pool for 10 minutes.
I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I tried to figure out why they would have such a stupid law. Well, I'm not really sure, but I'd think it's for the same reason that they have a life guard on every corner of the pool - lack of responsibility. Let me explain this a little further as well. I think at some point some kid probably died/drowned because it was in the pool wayyyyy too long, without eating, or drinking or something, and so something bad happened, and now there is a law to make sure this never happens again. It seems to me that a lot of laws in the US are not so much the result of a need to regulate the smooth co-existence of people in one nation (or state), but rather to fix problems that arose due to lack of responsibility. For example, when I go swimming in Germany, at the public pool, which often has 4-5 different pools, you'll usually only find one life-guard. That's it. One. And he's definitely not standing by the pool every second checking on people. Why? I think because there is some general assumption that you're in charge of yourself and your kid. You need to watch your kid. You need to make sure it doesn't drown, or does something stupid. Period. If something happens, I'm sure the life-guard will help, but it's not his job to watch your kids, or yourself. And I agree. I also don't think it's the government's job to make sure I'm responsible and exit the pool whenever I need to.
Do you get my point? It seems to me that the US has a problem with going to extremes. I feel like things are either way under-regulated, or then when they try to regulate, they go to extremes that are just ridiculous and end up having little to do with the actual problem and more with trying to take on the responsibilities of others. I'm not sure why things are like that, and maybe I'm not even right in how I see things. I also don't want to suggest that every German is a model of responsibility or something like that. That certainly isn't true. But, it seems that the US deals with certain problems that we just aren't dealing with in Germany.
I have a few ideas of why that may be. One reason, I think, may be that the US is very sue-happy. And that may be the result of two things: people feeling like they have a 'right' to everything, and courts that will grant ridiculous amounts of money for certain claims. In Germany, apparently, there is a law that regulates how much you can get. Basically, it suggests that the money you get needs to be proportionate to the damage you suffered. So, if you bought a boiling hot coffee at McDonalds, and it spilled on you, and you got a burn that put you in the hospital for a week, then you may only get money that kind of adds up to the hospital bills, a week of lost wages, and maybe an amount of money for pain that's reasonable. You wouldn't be able to get millions. Because your damage wasn't equivalent to millions. I think the fact that you can sue here for just about anything, and make millions is ridiculous and disables the country. I think it leads to people not wanting to take on responsibility, and the government jumping in to take the responsibility no one wants. And then instead of regulating the things government reasonably can and should regulate, they go overboard, creating dumb rules like the getting-out-of-the-pool-every-hour.
I think another problem may be the whole political correctness thing. I think that disables a country as well. Now, don't get me wrong. I think it's really important that both individuals and a nation as a whole are considerate and kind. I think a lot of Europe could make a greater effort at not being such pigs at times. But, at the same time, I don't think certain things should be permissable just because we need to 'keep everyone happy'...or something like that. Let me explain this one as well. The other day when I parked my car at Aldi's, I noticed another driver. It was a nice-looking older lady. I noticed her though, because she had her head in a really odd position - turned about 45 degrees to the right, and then turned up a little. At first I thought she was looking to the right for traffic or something, but shortly after noticed she didn't move her head at all. It was in that position - for good. I saw her in the store later on, and sure enough, the head was still in the same position. I about flipped. How is someone like that allowed to drive???????? How are some people in general allowed to drive, and how come that the most crappy, unsafe cars are allowed on the roads? In my opinion - political correctness. It wouldn't be 'fair' to keep the poor, uneducated, mentally slow and/or handicapped off the roads. Really? It's so ridiculous to me. If we don't think drunk drivers are safe on the road, why would be a car in really poor driving condition be safe? Why would be someone who is not capable to grasp general safe driving rules etc. be safe on the road? Why would someone who's unable to look both directions safe on the road? It's crazy to me. And not because I don't want poor or disabled people or whoever to get places. I just think compromising something we consider important to keep certain people happy or to pretend to be 'fair' is like letting my 2 year old child go to a party that I let me 17-year old attend just to be 'fair'. Arghhhhh....
Anyway, so, now I just read this article and it made me happy. Mostly, because I feel like it's the right thing to do. The deficits need to be reined in. Germany passed a law a few years ago that allows Germany's deficit to only grow so big before its government is forced (by the law it passed) to cut spending until the deficit is reduced to allowable amounts. What a great idea. I'm pleased to see a lot of countries making the right decisions (in my opinion), and I'm disappointed with Obama's choice on this (and not because he's a democrat - I think Bush, or even McCain would have pushed for the same thing). I don't know why the US struggles to figure out some of those things that seems so clear cut. It's easy to blame it all on 'socialism' or stuff like that, but since a lot of the 'socialistic' countries seem to figure things out better than the US (at least right now), I don't know that that's the answer.
For now, I think it's a result of not wanting to take on responsibility, feeling like you have a 'right' to everything, and political correctness. I may be wrong though. Comments and thoughts appreciated.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Fran, I agree with your post. Especially the sue happy stuff and how it is ruining our country. If I could change anything about health care it would be to change the laws on malpractice suits. Right now, it is ridiculous and those who sue frivolously make everyone pay for it with increased cost of care and increased cost of insurance. When the docs and the insurance companies pay for frivolous lawsuits, the price goes up for us as well. I understand England has a law - something about if you sue a doctor and lose, he/she can do a counter-suit and you have to pay for court expenses? I don't know the details but that sounds a lot more fair than it is here.
I am also upset about the victim mentality that pervades our country. It disgusts me that so many people in politics, medicine, law, CPS, schools, etc., always wants to point the finger at someone. Granted, sometimes people need to accept consequences for their negligent or purposeful behavior. But sometimes bad things happen. Accidents happen. Imperfect decisions are made. Why do we always seek to blame, blame, blame, rather than learn from what has happened and seek to make things better in the future? And why can't people take responsibility for their own mistakes or accidents instead of pinning it on someone else? (For example if you buy hot coffee, it is hot! If you spill it on yourself it will burn! Hello?!)
If people could remember how to forgive that would help a lot too. I think most of what we are upset about has its roots in the general moral decay of the people of our country. History shows that no government, no matter how great, can withstand the moral breakdown of the people.
It would be interesting to experience how "socialism" works in Germany or elsewhere.
Elice
The post was from me, Fran. Henry doesn't have enough stamina to write this much about politics. Just kidding. :)
I'd love to see what you thought of Germany, Elice. I'd still would love for you guys to come out there with us some time, so I can show you around. However, I also should add to my post that I don't think Germany is perfect. It has plenty of its own flaws and problems. For example, I get superannoyed when I hear people moaning and complaining on how their benefits get less and less, or how after years, their unemployment benefits are too low, or whatever. And granted, while I think Germany has more welfare benefits to offer, and usually offers them over longer time periods, I think the amounts are often lower than what you get here. Still, Germans know how to be frugal, so go do it. And if it's not enough try harder to find a job. I think Germans are definitely too lazy at times and could try a little harder, make a greater effort. I do prefer that in the USA. Anyway, those are just a few things, lest someone thinks I think Germany is perfect and just wanted to bash the USA. Not so.
Oh, here is another problem that deeply troubles me in the US though - huge lack of civil involvement, or simply being somewhat informed about politics, or just voting. It's scary when half of the country doesn't vote at all, and has no clue or care as to what happens.
I completely agree with your post and Elise's comments. Those issues are major pet peeves of mine. I get sick and tired of stupid rules that we have to follow just to protect the one idiot out there who did something 10 years ago. It completely depresses me to see how little responsibility people nowadays are willing to take for their actions. Everyone is always trying to blame someone else for whatever happens to them. People think they have the "right" to do whatever they want, but they won't take the responsibility of those choices. Very frustrating.
I sure wish Mr. Obama would commit to slowing down his spending of the trillions of dollars that we DON'T HAVE. I'm glad that there are others out there that see the need for lowering governmental debts. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned when it comes to money, but I go by the rule that you shouldn't spend money that you don't have. Instead, you get creative and figure out how to make what you have work better for you and you work your stinking butt off. I could rant on this topic for a long time, but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say I am absolutely ashamed of the example my government is setting in this area.
Fran, those are good points. I'm not sure how long our european systems will last. At least in France, the new generation carries some worrisome sense of entitlement too. I'm for some form of socialism, and have seen how it has helped many people have a decent life. and I'm glad I grew up in such a system. But I agree with you that it just would create more division and money for lawyers here in the USA. After all, this is a new nation (less than 500 years old), and the principle of freedom for all has become individualism. I don't know what to think about politics anymore, because I wish the less fortunate too could receive of the abundance that exists, but there is so much class division already...
I loved this. It's surprises me sometimes how much our political views coincide. I don't know why.
Anyway, I don't have anything interesting to say except, "hear, hear!" and I can't believe you still went to church after all you've been through this weekend. Impressive, you are.
Thanks for the comments. I think politics these days really are a tricky thing.
Julie, you shouldn't be surprised at all. We're both awesome - it only makes sense for a lot of our views/thoughts to coincide. I think you may be surprised maybe because there seems to be this notion that I'm liberal. I guess I am somehow, but then again I don't think I am. I think all of us who commented on here believe in the same things (responsibility, freedom, hard work, not being in debt, etc.). I think we just sometimes have different idea of how these things can play out in real life politics, but it's what we all want to see.
I'm not so surprised. Also, maybe others would be less surprised if I'd quit playing the devil's advocate so much. hahaha...
Marie, I definitely think there are some troublesome trends developing in Europe. I don't think it matters what kind of political system we have anywhere - a nation will succeed or fail depending on its people (kind of like Elice suggested). If you have an immoral people, you can have a great government and a great system and it'll only get you so far. I guess you could have a great people and still not get far with a bad government. But it seems to me from history that if people were good and wanted the right things, a bad government usually didn't last.
Fran
Good points Fran. I've often thought population might also play a role in making socialism fail in the US. The US population is nearly 4 times that of Germany and by 2025 is projected to be about 5 times that of Germany. The sheer size of the country I think prevents one governing body (least of all the incompetent American federal government) from regulating much of anything. We're just too big. Thomas Jefferson was exactly right when he said that local government, close to the people, is the best government.
Yes, you've brought that point up before. I think there may be something to it, but I wouldn't know how to effectively compare it to even get a feel for that. However, I also don't think the US would do so well on a State level (like the Ohio law is a just a State thing). So, I don't know...I'm sure though size has some sort of impact. Clearly, the more people you have to 'keep happy' the tougher it gets.
Fran I can explain the 10 minutes out of the pool every hour, atleast I can tell you how it is explained to us here in Utah. For years we have had now peeing in the pool signs up at every public pool, but despite that in the past few years there has been some serious illness spread by well - peeing in the pool. The mandatory ten minutes out of the pool is a potty break for all those kids who don't tell mom they need to go, they just go.
One of the major things that opponents of social welfare in the US like to bring up is that it will bankrupt our country, so I'm wondering how can Germany pay for it's social medicine? I was reading, I want to say in Time magazine, about how Germany, because of it's keep the deficit under control law you mention, is reducing it's unemployment benefits and at the same time firing (and therefore adding to the number of unemployed) a number employees of the bureaucracy. This makes it appear that Germany's social system is not maintainable in the long term (not that unemployment and medical benefits are the same thing exactly, they are just both social programs).
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not actually anti-anything-that-could-be-identified-as-social. I believe the Lord meant it when he told us to care for our widows and the fatherless, and that we are not to allow the begger to put up his petition in vain. Those who have, have a God-given responsibility to care for those who have not, but I don't think any government of man have yet figured out the best way to make sure everyone's needs have met (probably partly because of the conflicting needs that people have).
One thing I do find intriguing about some of Germany's, shall we call them benefits? Are those which are granted to all, not just the poor. As far as I could determine, though they could by private insurrence, anyone could be part of the social medicine (in the US you have to be living in poverty - and not to proud to accept government help to get medicaid, and more than likly you can only get it for your kids even then). Also EVERYONE with children gets Kindergeld, I could handle a little acknowledgment that my decision to have children is a valuable contribution to society. The benefit I see in the universiality of such benefits is that people don't die of heartattacks and their children don't suffer malnutrition because they don't have to worry about bearing the stigma of being a disproportionate burden to society in getting the care their family needs.
Well, I'm sure we'll see problems with Germany's benefits in the future. However, that doesn't mean it can't work. First of all, it has worked pretty well for a little over 50 years. Secondly, I think the biggest problem Germany's welfare system is facing (other than annoying lazy people who think nothing is 'enough') is the decreasing population. If our population would increase, or at least stay level, a lot of current problems would 'evaporate'. Also, I think just because Germany is currently cutting in the welfare sector to reign in their deficit doesn't mean the welfare system is not sustainable long-term. That's like saying because we can't afford jack right now because we're in school, we'll never be able to afford anything. The law Germany has it to ensure that the government doesn't keep spending and increasing a deficit that's not managable (in German it's called a Schuldenbremse - debt brake). So, while they have to make dramatic cuts EVERYWHERE right now to sort out their budgets, doesn't mean that things will work better again in the long-term and benefits can be restored.
I may be wrong though.
Oh, and I think even if there is a reason now for the pool-10-minute break, it's still not a good reason for me. I don't see why I should be inconvenienced in my swimming, just because another parent can't take their kids to the potty regularly or responsibly. And if people's peeing into the pool (which one should sadly expect at any public pool) is such a health problem, then people can be informed about that risk, and go swimming at their own risk. Seems like everyone in Germany is surviving ok, and I doubt that we pee less there.
I think it's just coming back to a sue-happy nation. Public pools don't want to deal with the potential law-suit and so that's what we get. And I don't necessarily blame them. It's just annoying that that's how it has to be.
I think you're still working under the assumption that the pool break is based on a law suit. That could very well be true and we are, indeed, a sue-happy nation but you don't know that for sure. It still seems like a silly rule though. We went to that same YMCA pool and were told that they switch out lifeguards every hour. Not sure why that would be necessary but that's what we heard.
At any rate I would like to put forth the idea that although the scriptures do tell us to look over the widows and the fatherless that doesn't mean government is the way to reach the end goal of having everybody taken care of. I'm not opposed to all social programs but I think the scriptures are meant to encourage individuals to look after each other, not a suggestion that government should take upon itself the task of providing for everybody.
Fran, as much as I hate to admit it, your post hit on some things that really trouble me about America. I'm afraid we have become fat and lazy (as a whole). Our generation as well as our parents' generation haven't really known hard times generally speaking. I'm afraid we have become complacent in our wealth and have forgotten what has made us the richest nation ever. Hard work and personal responsibility. I hate to say these things but a large portion of our society has forgotten those values and there's a large portion of our federal government that loves to cater to that sentiment for poltiical gain.
Just a quick comment: I'm not saying that the pool law is a result of a law-suit, but that a lot of laws are created either to prevent a law-suit, or...because people tend to go to 'extremes'. If there are similar laws like this in other states (and it appears Utah has such a law) then it's probably just another example of government taking responsibility for stuff that someone else should be responsible for (parents in this case). Why they do it...I can't say for sure of course. I'm just saying my guess may be to prevent law suits.
Oh and I forgot. Political correctness is the devil. I've long felt that political correctness is slowly destroying America. This covers everything from having to be ever-so-careful with your language to having everybody in the Little League receiving a trophy even if their team didn't win a game.
One example that really irks me is in the administration's policy that scratches from all documents the term "radical Islam." In an attempt to be sensitive to Muslims we are afraid to correctly identify our enemy as radical Islam. There was recently an incredible White House press briefing where the official White House spokesman has an exchange with a reporter. This reporter is trying to get him to acknowledge that radical Islam is responsible for recent terrorist attacks. This spokesman goes to great and embarrassing lengths to avoid using the phrase "radical Islam."
Those who control the language control the conversation. How will we ever defeat terrorism if we're afraid to acknowledge that 99% of terrorist attacks originate from radical Islam?????? What in the world are we sacrificing American lives for if we're afraid to talk about who the enemy is? What is the point of our wars? Sorry this is not entirely related but it makes my blood boil.
Well Troy, whenever you want to complain about 'political correctness' you can come here. It really drives me nuts in very, very many instances. However, to be honest, the one example you brought up, I do have a differing view (surprisesurprise).
Here's how I see it. Whenever those crazy polygamists do stuff, it often gets associated with Mormonism. And it bothers me because those people, in my opinion, aren't Mormons at all. I don't feel like I have anything in common with them, except maybe an initial joined history. That's it. I think a similar thing applies for Muslims and Islam. Almost all terrorists may be religious fanatics, but they probably are living Islam about as well as the polygamists are living 'Mormonism'. In something as big as a war, where we try to determine the enemy, I'm sure all those Muslims who are living their religion properly, don't want to be associated with crazy fanatics either who may call themselves Muslims, but don't actually live the religion properly. I don't know if that makes sense. Basically, I think calling the terrorists 'radical Islam' is incorrect to me, and brings a bad rep to a religion that is actually not a bad one (in my opinion - and I've studied it quite a bit). The people the US are fighting are in my opinion fanatics - religious, cultural, whatever. And then just crazy on top of it all.
But yeah, political correctness can get really, really, really annoying.
Don't have the energy to comment on the political stuff--but I'm mostly with you on it. The pool law is likely not because of pee in the water but feces and the risk of Cryptosporidium. Strains of it have become chlorine resistant over the last several years and there have been serious outbreaks all over the country from swimming pools. Here, Any child under the age of 4 (even if they are potty trained) has to wear a swim diaper as well as a pair of plastic pants over that and it is a requirement of the health department. And they do have regular breaks where you have to vacate the pool so they can test the water and clean up any potential contamination. Ten minutes every hour seems excessive and you are right in that it is probably partially fear of prosecution from people getting sick claiming that they were negligent in trying to maintain a clean pool.One other brief point about government run institutions--I think one of the main reasons they would not work well here is simply due to the size of the country and regional variations. A system that might work in New York City would likely not work the same way in rural Montana. I think that smaller, European countries have fewer variables to take into account in some ways.
hahaha, Jesus Nakedei! :D
As to the topic below, you know I agree. I have a stroller that I ordered from the States, and every day while taking a stroll with it, I have to look at that idiotic sign "Do not leave child unattended. Do not lean on handle bar" because some American moron did this and then sued the company for something s/he should be responsible for.
So, that's the downside on the malpractise suits. The upside is that doctors are a bit more careful over there (or are they?) than here. When I had my wisdom tooth removed here in Finland, it was taken care of at the public dentist, and he couldn't care less as to how I was doing, because I wasn't his customer and my satisfaction wasn't intricately related to his salary. You can't sew a doctor in Finland, no matter how badly he messed up. And if you complain, you get the whole spiel about how you should be thankful because it's "free."
I have major issues with the US system. And I have major system with the Nordic, socialist, systems as well.
I think the German mixed health care system, is the best I've come across. And I'm not saying it because I'm biased. But because it's the truth. :P
Oh, and I agree about the point that people have brought up about the costs of government-regulated health care. The main problem in the Western countries is national debt, and I honestly think that problem must be fixed before anything. Or we'll run into big trouble a few years down the road. But that is another topic. :)
Well, I think balance is a key element in almost anything. Being able to practice anything without little repercussions if you're not doing a good job, definitely doesn't sound good to me. I kind of wish I could experience the health care system in other European countries to have a less biased opinion. I don't think my exposures in England, Austria and Greece were sufficient to really know how well things work there. So, all I ever see is Germany and the US, and when I compare those, too - Germany always looks a lot better.
Post a Comment