Josh Buckner

Here’s a little bit of hospital slang I learned from a friend: the homeboy dropoff. In at least one Southern California hospital, that’s what they call it when gangsters drive their bullet-ridden or overdosing buddies to the hospital, only to drop the homeboy on the curb outside of the emergency room as they rush off to avoid being identified.

Homeboy dropoffs usually involve drug overdoses or life-threatening wounds from gang fights. Since these activities are illegal, a homeboy has to be in really bad shape before he’ll be brought to an emergency room. Hospital staff will rush to his rescue, working to save his life while there’s still time. When confronted with this situation, emergency room doctors and nurses don’t ask questions or consider consequences; all that matters is preventing the death of a human being. On the other hand, the scumbag friends who shoved him out of the car and sped off… they weren’t too worried about their homie at that point.

Sometimes, the homeboy survives the ordeal and has the opportunity to meet the person who saved his life: a complete stranger. This can be a powerful life-changing experience for people caught in the cycle of gang violence or drug addiction. A second chance at life. Some need a third or fourth chance before they learn their lesson, and some never do learn.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say this gangbanger/junkie has no health insurance and can’t afford to pay the hospital bill. Let’s go one step further and say he’s also an illegal immigrant. Who pays for his life-saving emergency care? The answer: We all do. Depending on various factors, uninsured E.R. costs are paid by some combination of federal, state, county, and hospital funds. Ultimately, the burden falls upon the people who can afford their own health care. Sound like socialized medicine to you?

This is the current health care system in the United States. Socialized medicine is nothing new in this country. As an American taxpayer, part of you might be a little pissed off to find out your tax dollars are being spent on homeboy dropoffs. Instead, take pride in the compassion and respect for life expressed by this aspect of our health care system. And given the vast resources available to us in America, not many people would want doctors to simply stand by and let the homeboy die in front of the hospital.

The debate about health care reform is not really about homeboy dropoffs. They’re already covered (emergency room visit, not follow-up care). We need serious reform because health insurance, medical procedures, and prescription drugs are becoming too expensive for regular working Americans to afford. If middle-class folks can’t afford health insurance, then it’s hard to justify government-subsidized health care for the Americans living in poverty. Costs are going up while the number of insured is shrinking. If we continue at this rate, the entire thing falls apart – including the private health insurance business. We need to fix the health care system so it works for everybody.

Strong, smart health care reform should drastically cut the overall cost of health care, insurance, and pharmaceuticals. Don’t blame the homeboy dropoffs for the fact that America overpays for health care.

Posted in: Politics by Josh Buckner / Tags: health care, poverty, reform, tax

1 Comment

Health care reform is the big debate in American politics right now, with the so-called public option being likened to European-style socialized medicine. That’s supposed to be a bad thing, I guess.

By the magical knowledge-bearing powers of the internet, I discovered some research which compares the United States with 18 other industrialized nations by the rate of preventable deaths. Preventable deaths are defined as: “deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care.”

In a Commonwealth Fund-supported study comparing preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries, researchers found that the United States placed last. While the other nations improved dramatically between the two study periods—1997–98 and 2002–03—the U.S. improved only slightly on the measure.

Source: Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis

To make it worse, the United States also spends more on health care than any other nation. Before you get too upset, you have to remember that health care is treated as an industry in this country. So if we judge the health care sector alongside other commercial enterprises, everything’s going great. Why change?

Posted in: Politics by Josh Buckner / Tags: business, economy, health care, reform

2 Comments

What was Brian Kilmeade thinking? On the July 8 episode of the news program Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade responded to a recent Finnish-Swedish study which found evidence showing that marriage is beneficial to your mental health (British Medical Journal 2009;339:b2462). Kilmeade didn’t think the study had any relevance to marriages in America because apparently the Finns and Swedes aren’t “marrying other species and other ethnics” like Americans do. Kilmeade said that, since Finns and Swedes have “pure genes” and a “pure society”,  the results of the study do not apply to (impure?) interracial marriages in the United States.

Fox & Friends is a conservative-leaning news program with a talk-show format that typically contains a lot of light banter. There are usually three co-hosts who sit around a coffee table and engage in water-cooler chat about the day’s news. When it came time to discuss this particular news story, the other two co-hosts picked up the cue and attempted a couple of light-hearted jokes about marriage.

Video via MMFA

If genes aren’t sciencey enough for you, then maybe Kilmeade can feign a little more credibility by interchanging ‘ethnicity’ with ‘species’. It goes without saying that a term like “pure genes” was and still is a popular term among believers in eugenics and, well, racists. It is a key premise of ethnic cleansing movements. Aside from being politically incorrect and possibly racist, Kilmeade’s comments were terribly misinformed. The delivery was awkward and stammering, and the the other co-hosts appeared genuinely shocked. Given the general mood and direction of the conversation, Kilmeade came across a little too serious. Where was his head at?

Was he struggling to dress up his racist views for the TV audience? Was some personal relationship baggage surfacing a bit there? Was he trying to repeat something he heard before, something that he didn’t fully understand but sounded smart? Of course I can’t get into his head and know with certainty what he was thinking. I’ll give Mr. Kilmeade the benefit of the doubt and grant him the strongest representation of his statements that I can produce.

Kilmeade seems to be saying that the societies of Finland and Sweden are ethnically homogeneous, therefore nearly all marriages are intraracial. It follows that the conclusion drawn from the study (marriage improves your mental health) only applies to other ethnically homogeneous societies. American society is multicultural, so comparing Nordic marriages to American marriages is comparing apples to oranges. In other words, the study only shows that marriages within the same race, within a homogeneous society are good for your mental health.

There is some validity to what Kilmeade is saying here, if this is indeed what he was trying to say. In fact, there are studies on interracial marriage within the United States showing that interracial couples are less satisfied and experience more stress in their marriages than intraracial couples. But why are interracial marriages less happy?

The main source of dissatisfaction within interracial marriages (in America) is the racism and prejudice that these couples experience. Rather than being caused by cultural friction between the husband and wife, the primary cause is external to the relationship: racial prejudice in American society. It comes from strangers, co-workers, friends, and even family. A large portion of our society still shuns interracial relationships, though now it’s expression is more subdued than in the past. An example of this subdued disapproval is the assumption that different races are somehow incompatible in marriage and family building – an assumption that Kilmeade introduces into the otherwise race-neutral discussion. So our good friend Mr. Kilmead’s off-base opinion implicitly provided its own justification. I doubt he sees it that way.

Kilmeade clearly intended for his view to be taken seriously. His opinion followed (circular) logic and used scientific language (species and genes), however he seemed to be after a predetermined conclusion that isn’t really backed up by any real science. In other words, it’s pseudoscience. But worse, it’s the very brand of pseudoscience that is highly convincing to White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other hate groups.

I don’t know what Brian Kilmeade’s personal beliefs are and I don’t know if he’s racist. Maybe he’s aware of the unique challenges that interracial couples face and believes he should warn those who are open to dating/marrying outside their own race. Perhaps he’s afraid that this study could be used to advance same-sex marriage rights. All I can say with any certainty is that his view is not only incorrect, but it is a view that has historically enabled great hatred and cruelty.

Brian Kilmeade has some explaining to do.

Footnote: I am the offspring of an inter-species couple who married shortly after their impure union was legalized in the United States. My parents remain happily married over 40 years later.

Posted in: Race by Josh Buckner / Tags: culture, interracial, multiracial, Race

1 Comment

President Obama has recently declared that the United States is not a Christian nation at war with Islam. He also bowed to the Saudi King, shook hands Hugo Chavez, and promised the world that America would not torture. For this Obama has been criticized as showing weakness, a criticism most famously made by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Is Cheney right or wrong about Obama? How do you measure political strength, anyways? When I listen to the debate over the strength of Obama’s leadership, I notice that people seem to prefer either masculine or feminine leadership styles. So what is the difference between them?

Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
- General George Patton

Masculine leadership is marked by power hierarchies and deference to authority. A masculine leader understands that his followers need strong and decisive leadership, so he is not afraid to exercise his authority through force and intimidation. Defy his leadership and face clear, merciless consequences. Preemptive aggression serves to solidify his dominant place in the pecking order. Masculine leaders have achieved positions of authority by winning battles in direct competition (politically or militarily). At its best, a masculine power structure provides clear lines of authority, accountability, and effective top-down communication. At its worst, masculine leadership is vulnerable to abuses of power and extremely adversarial relationships. You’re either with us or against us.

What does a strong masculine leader do when called upon as a third party to help negotiate a peace deal? His view is quite simple: don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Bush received a lot of criticism when this video footage was released, however I believe this was actually a strong display of masculine leadership. Hezbollah challenged and therefore opened themselves to retribution. From Bush’s powerful position, the idea of doing something to end the conflict didn’t even warrant a pause in his meal. (It can be argued that Bush did not hold Israel accountable in the same way that he condemned the violence from Hezbollah, but that is beyond the scope of this article.)

Commentator Bill O’Reilly is a pretty accurate example of masculine-style dominance. Regardless of your opinion about him, the man is trained to detect any sign of weakness and pounce upon it. Listen to his interpretation of this exchange between Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Empathy is the biggest negotiation tool. I must try to understand where the other person’s coming from to make points for my side.
-Lee Ducat

Feminine leadership seeks group cohesion and actively builds consensus. A feminine leader recognizes the power of unity and inclusiveness, and her strong communication skills make her an attractive leader. In negotiations, she understands the other side and finds win-win solutions. Feminine leaders come to power by dissolving the competition as opposed to beating the competition. At its best, feminine leadership allows all parties to feel that their voices matter, and therefore have a shared investment in a common outcome. At its worst, feminine leadership is overly accommodating in its attempts to build alliances.

Now let’s contrast these leadership styles with the opposite end of the power spectrum, again through the masculine/feminine voices.

The masculine-submissive type has resigned to the fact that he is not in charge. He avoids conflict because he usually winds up on the losing end. He’s bitter that nice guys finish last, but finds some comfort in being the nice guy who always does what he’s told. He might advocate pacifism and world peace based on his fear of losing the conflict.

The feminine-submissive type seeks to reduce conflict and avoid confrontation by downplaying her own interests. If people are upset with her, she assumes it’s her fault and does what she can to appease them. This style can be summed up as blaming America first.

In light of these distinctions, what type of leadership do you think President Obama embodies? If you say that Obama is a weak leader, please explain what you mean. Do you believe that Obama’s feminine leadership qualities are ineffective, or are you saying that he fails at being a cowboy-style leader? It’s fair and helpful to debate the merits of masculine vs. feminine leadership, but don’t simply equate feminine leadership with weak leadership. Perhaps, as in love, the most effective leaders utilize the best of both worlds while minimizing the shortcomings of both.

The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.
-Jim Rohn

Posted in: Politics by Josh Buckner / Tags: Bush, Cheney, foreign policy, leadership, Obama, psychology

No Comments