05 March 2011

A Good Question

" ... Not content with depriving women of reproductive healthcare, House Republicans want to starve them and their children too. Their budget cuts the Women, Infants and Children Health and Nutrition program by $750 million and Head Start by $1 billion. It cuts $50 million from a block grant that pays for prenatal healthcare for 2.5 million low-income women and healthcare for 31 million children each year. As Charles Blow writes in the New York Times, proposed cuts to medical research strike directly at efforts to roll back the US infant mortality rate, now the highest among advanced economies. The Republicans seem bent on proving the truth of the bitter joke that “prolifers” care about children only before they are born. As for caring about women? Even as fetal vessels, the ladies just don’t count. After all, one in five women has visited a Planned Parenthood clinic—often for routine gynecological care. Is the GOP going to set up a replacement network of clinics to provide Pap smears and breast exams and STD testing and such? Or is Jesus now the national gynecologist? What on earth is the matter with these people?" (Katha Pollitt)
Anybody got a sensible answer?

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Cyranos DeMet said...

Sir, a sensible answer I can give, but only if you'll allow that any explanation of insanity can actually make sense. We are looking at possibly the first fully confirmable case of mental illness in a collective entity, a social entity rather than an individual.

From your writings I'm sure you can appreciate how population pressure coupled with modern communication has homogenized the personality structures found in our society, how in a life of an overwhelming number of choices a great many are following the prey animal instinct of herding, of being the same, bolstering their internal emotional security by emulation rather than contemplation. All well and good unless an aberrant or irrational thought becomes self supporting, self replicating within the collective entity. Such a thought has entered into the conservative side of our land, the conservatives who always have been the more compliance oriented, who always have been more of one mind than the liberals where alliances among the factional causes are constantly forming and reforming to balance the mono thought conservatives. Where the liberal half of our land certainly forms collective entities they are smaller, emotionally much more diverse than the conservatives, the nature of their competing causes allows individuals to migrate one to the other when any one of the liberal collective entities begins showing signs of similar illness. Among the liberals a mentally ill collective entity is recognized and responded to, there are other choices to support a similar emotional structure. Such is not the case for the conservatives.

I would posit the pathology impacting the conservative segment of the culture is rooted in what was once described as Future Shock, a conflict involving their perception of evolving political structures. It is our fate to live in a transitional time when assumptions evolving since the fall of Rome are no longer valid: the nations are no longer the ultimate political power, the corporations and the alliances of corporations have grown to challenge the nations as providers of emotional security in exchange for loyalty. The conservatives are showing every sign of a schizophrenic break induced by the conflicting demands for their ultimate loyalty upon which their emotional security is dependent. To my thought their actions are quite consistent with such a diagnosis, they are indeed behaving like an entity desperate to retreat back into a time before their environment placed them in such an untenable position.

I would welcome your thoughts on the subject, and would offer as definition for a needed word-symbol the following:

http://nosthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/02/bushite.html#comments

Yours,

CDM

06 March, 2011 16:40  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home