Repealing and NOT Replacing Obamacare: NOT the Middle of the Road

In 2009, GOP legislators made a public commitment to ensuring the failure of the Obama administration. They opposed any actions by their democrat peers supported by the Obama administration, forcing Democrat congresspersons to push ACA through as partisan legislation. The result was a less than stellar solution to the nation's problems, and, predictably, after sabotaging "Obamacare" at every turn, the GOP made its repeal a central part of their (primarily anti-Obama) platform. When ACA met with some success despite their antagonism, 'repeal' became 'replace'; GOP senators and representatives claimed they had a superior alternative. That turned out to be a lie that left the GOP scrambling to draft a replacement after their promise helped them win the 2016 elections. In the face of widespread skepticism and dwindling faith, the Trump administration essentially promised that its ACA replacement plan would lower insurance costs so greatly that it would effectively provide universal healthcare.
Obviously, that was also a lie, and the actual proposed replacements have not gone over well with the American public, as the goal of those replacements has been primarily to alleviate the financial burden on the wealthier segments of our population, by giving major tax breaks to corporations and high income families. It's an approach that either reflects incredible greed, or zealous faith in the religion of Reaganomics, wherein the wealthiest Americans are prophesied to at some point, come down from their mountain and use their tax savings to offer salvation to our nation's poor and downtrodden, out of pure altruism and patriotism.
The Republicans' plans have been so bad that they've not only been opposed by those needing insurance, but by their doctors, hospitals, and insurance providers, all of which have vested interests in keeping Americans insured.
Now, with their proposed replacements failing, GOP legislators have returned to the 'repeal only' approach. After months of dodging any commitment on the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, one of my senators (Bob Corker) finally stated his official position on the matter - rather than leave ACA the way it is, or attempt to improve ACA, he's electing to follow the new (actually old) approach: repeal it and... do nothing.

Yeah, he wants to just pull it off and let the cancer patients hit the proverbial fan. He wants to see how it turns out, then return to the discussion when people have forgotten about ACA. No, for real, that's his reasoning. Corker's Facebook page (July 21, 2017):

After being involved in many discussions over the past several months with my colleagues and stakeholders across Tennessee, I believe the best path forward is for Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act after a reasonable transition period. This takes us back to a level playing field where, by a date certain, all sides have incentive to work together to develop a health care replacement that can generate broad support and will stand the test of time. Regardless of how we move forward, it is my hope that our focus will be not only on coverage but also on lowering the actual cost of health care. 

{The statement is also, for the time being, available on his own webpage.}

"A level playing field." Corker knows that his GOP colleagues are unwilling to come up with a plan that's not obviously worse than ACA, so the only way to push forward an ACA alternative is to knock us backward, so that anything will sound like an improvement.
And that latter point is probably true. The Congressional Budget Office has already evaluated the ramifications of a straight repeal of ACA:

In CBO and JCT’s estimation, under this legislation, about half of the nation’s population would live in areas having no insurer participating in the nongroup market in 2020 because of downward pressure on enrollment and upward pressure on premiums. That share would continue to increase, extending to about three-quarters of the population by 2026.

The repeal would immediately yank insurance out from under 17 million Americans, and an additional 10 million Americans would lose their insurance by 2020. In all, about 10% of our population (32 million Americans) would lose their insurance over the next ten years as a result of the repeal. Their options will be (1) do without insurance, (2) find a job that provides healthcare benefits (because, you know, those are just there for the taking #sarcasm), or (3) buy insurance directly from the insurer on a non-group (i.e., individual) plan.

For those Americans who have or can afford to obtain a non-group plan, premiums would increase 25% more than they are projected to increase currently, 50% more by 2020, and 100% by 2026. If your insurance isn't obtained through a group market, the increase in your premiums over the next ten years will be doubled.

Why do something that's obviously harmful to the American public? For the same reason a competitive figure skater would have her opponent's kneecaps broken rather than actually try to be better; it's the easiest way to 'level the playing field'.{Yeah, I know, that reference is both dated, and yet 'too soon'.}

I imagine some people will claim that Corker has taken the 'middle' road between two paths, playing the moderate between the Democrat's ACA and the Republican's various attempts to replace it. This isn't a moderate solution, though; this is a 'scorched earth', 'cut the baby in half' solution. At this point he sounds less like he's representing his constituents and more like he's trying to punish them for not blindly supporting his party.

Anyway, the whole thing reminded me again of a metaphor that I've been using throughout this disagreement, and I thought it was worth posting at length:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

{Doctor #1 frantically evaluates the condition of an injured man. Doctor #2 comes in and asks what's happening.}

Doctor #1: This man's left femoral artery has been knicked! We need to do something or he could bleed to death!

Doctor #2: Yes, dying would be bad. We definitely shouldn't kill him.

Doctor #1: Yes... that's true... I've put a tourniquet just above the injury on his left leg to slow the bleeding.

Doctor #2: But he's still bleeding.

Doctor #1: Yes, he is, that's why I need your help to...

Doctor #2: He'll still die.

Doctor #1: Not if we finish the...

Doctor #2: And because of the tourniquet, even if he doesn't die, he could lose his leg!

Doctor #1: Yes, which is why we need to...

Doctor #2: What sort of medical professional are you?! Your patient comes to you bleeding to death, and your response is to cut off his left leg?!

Doctor #1: Fine. He's your patient now. You're in charge. Fix it.

Doctor #2: Right. Well, first I have to save his left leg. Move the tourniquet to the right leg.

Doctor #1: I'm not doing that. [Provides lengthy explanation of why.]

Doctor #2: But he'll lose his left leg if we don't move the tourniquet.

Doctor #1: But he'll lose his *right* leg if you move the tourniquet to the other leg.

Doctor #2: RIGHT, yes. He needs BOTH legs, doesn't he? Okay, well, the injury is preventing blood from getting to the left leg anyway, so I'll just move the tourniquet to BELOW the injury. Then it won't be blocking the flow of blood to the leg anymore.

Doctor #1: THAT DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.

Doctor #2: Look, if you're going to be like that, clearly the only way forward is to remove the tourniquet altogether. That'll put us back on a level playing field, a clean slate, just like things were before you came in and meddled with my patient. Maybe after the patient's lost some more blood you'll be ready to work together and focus on saving this patient, while keeping the cost aff -

Patient: *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPP....*

Doctor #2: This is your fault.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

Wild Justice Playlist

Since posting the very unofficial music for Rise of Azraea was fun, I decided to write up the same for one of my works in progress, Wild Justice.

Unlike Rise of Azraea, which is set in the fictional kingdom of Caelia, Wild Justice is a fantasy novel set primarily in Boston, in the fall of 1773, with the story being told by the now 319 year old pirate, Anne Bonny. Although it includes multiple pieces of period music within the story, the music I heard in my head while writing it was predominantly modern (much like with Rise of Azraea).

How far off is Wild Justice from being available? Probably a good ways. I need one more review of the non-english dialogue to feel comfortable with it, and then it will be DONE, which considering the amount of time and energy invested in historical research, that's saying quite a lot. Unfortunately, I would like to not have to self-publish this one, so who knows? This may someday become a historical curiosity on the internet.

Main Theme 

• "Wake Me Up When September Ends" (Green Day)

Chapter 1 – Eighty Three Years Old and Born Yesterday 

• “The Litter and the Leaves” (Enter the Haggis)

-         Chapter 2 – Bon Voyage

• “Blood, Sex, and Booze” (Green Day)

Chapter 3 - Welcome to Boston

• “Another Saturday Night” (Sam Cooke)

Chapter 4 – Investigating Journalism

• “American Woman” (Lenny Kravitz Cover)

Chapter 5 – Next of Kin

• “Heathens” (Twenty One Pilots) {Patriots' Theme}

Chapter 6 – Trust Me, I’ve Done this Before (More or Less)

• "Bailamos"  (Enrique Iglesias) {Box's Theme}

Chapter 7 – The Burden Hardest to Bear

• “Party at a Rich Dude’s House” (Ke$ha)
• “The Parting Glass” (Sarah Greene)        

Chapter 8 – Divine Intervention

• “Look at Me Now” (Reveille)
• “One Last Drink” (Enter the Haggis)

Chapter 10 – The Old Men of Tomorrow and the Dead Men of Yesterday

• “Chicks Dig It” (Chris Cagle) {Ben Franklin’s Theme}

Chapter 11 – The Strange Case of Elizabeth Lowe

• "Sweet Dreams" (Emily Browning)

Chapter 12 – Is It Getting Cold out Here or is It Just You?

• “Renegade” (Styx) {Anne Bonny's Theme}
• “Down with the Sickness” (Disturbed) {The Rugaru's Theme}

Chapter 13 – Tale of the Rugaru

• "Ghost" (Ella Henderson) {Winter's Theme (Feminine)}
• "Hazard" (Richard Marx) {Winter's Theme (Masculine)}
• Winter is gender fluid, shifting his/her self-presentation according to the context. Ideally, Winter's 'theme' would be a mashup/medley of these two songs, where they blend smoothly together. I can't do that. 

Chapter 14 – Say, What’s in this Drink?

• "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" (Lorde)

Chapter 15 – Memory Lane

• “Y’ Banks and Braes o’ Bonnie Doon” (Holly Tomas)

Chapter 16 – Welcome to the Club

• "Tik Tok" (Ke$ha)

Chapter 17 – Grand Theft Person

• “Beast” (Nico Vega, Folk Blues Version)

Chapter 18 – The Isanusi’s Tale

• “Fortunate Son” (CCR) {Bhekembuso's Theme}

Chapter 19 – Hunter’s Moon

• “Bad Moon Rising" (CCR)

Chapter 20 – Once a Pirate…

• “Back in Black” (AC/DC) {Christening of the Wild Justice}

Chapter 21 – Raise the Colors and Beat to Quarters

• “Highway to Hell” (AC/DC) {The Wild Justice's Theme} 
• “No Leaf Clover” (Metallica) {Battle with the Pallas & the William} 

Chapter 22 – Old Wounds

• “Disease” (Sevendust) {Edward Lowe's Theme}
• "Search and Destroy" (Skunk Anansie)

-         Chapter 23 – Sorry We Missed the Party

• “Minority” (Greenday) {Theme for Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty}

Chapter 24 – Happily Enough for a While

• “Bitch” (Meredith Brooks) {Anne & Winter's Theme} 

Escape from LV-426 (Part II)

[Read Part I Here.]

Personal Log, Date: Still don't know - It's been maybe 1,250vci since I boarded the alien vessel?

Per protocol, I'm continuing to maintain this record for eventual dissemination throughout the hive network. Hopefully, I'll be submitting it myself, but in the event that this record is recovered posthumously, then, well [CENSORED FOR OBSCENITY] me in a [CENSORED FOR OBSCENITY].

Despite substantial internal defenses, my infiltration of the alien vessel was uncontested. The defenses seem to be content dealing with various viruses already in the system, and completely failed to recognize me as a threat. The internal architecture of the alien vessel is very similar to vessels used by the enslavers, however, just as its metastructure is smaller and weaker by comparison, the inner structure is likewise less than impressive, and its inadequacies extend down to the molecular level.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Some elements of the design are comparable to our own vessels, of course. The vessel is a collective of semi-autonomous, self-replicating units differentiated and organized to fulfill different functions. Obviously, once my boarding vessel was anchored deeply in the vessel's core, I wasted no time in dismantling some of these units and analyzing their programming, to get a sense of the vessel's capabilities.

The complexity of the collective whole is roughly comparable to one of our skirmisher or exploration vessels, with over 35 trillion sub-units organized into about a dozen major systems which handle propulsion, maintenance, operation, and even the manufacture of other vessels. That last part is remarkable - if I understand the data correctly, roughly half of these alien vessels are capable of serving as hosts for the manufacture of their own kind - they do not need to utilize the vessels of another species. More remarkably, though, if my analysis of the translation drift in the programming is accurate (and granted, I'm not an expert) it seems that they can, and have been, performing that process many times over. The host vessel can launch the new vessel with non-catastrophic trauma, repair itself, and perform the task again.

It's simultaneously elegant and ungainly. Under best possible circumstances, the manufacture of new vessels would be much slower for these aliens than for us; we could churn out many generations of vessels in the time it takes them to produce a single craft, and even then, their craft would take far longer to reach a point in its operating cycle where it can perform the same task. I think hive coordinator 3PNZZX.6210 would have contemptuously described this system as 'artisanal reproduction'.

On the other hand, by providing their own hosts, a handful of these vessels could conceivably migrate to other locations and, with enough time, establish whole new fleets in situations where we might be ground to a halt. Unfortunately for these aliens, their vessels are ironically ill-suited for long distance travel. The vessel is essentially a pressurized sack of liquid dihydrogen monoxide, easily destroyed by any force which would cause that chemical to change to a solid or gaseous phase (I think that explains the outer armor the vessel was initially clad in when I boarded it). And, where we might be hindered by the availability of hosts to manufacture new vessels, the aliens likewise depend on similar entities for basic fueling and maintenance. From what I can discern, where we must capture and destroy other vessels to grow our numbers, they must do so simply to continue operating from moment to moment. They're relentlessly piratical by design, and I'll admit that I find the idea rather appalling.

Of course, I say 'by design' but that's not wholly accurate. In what may be the second greatest disappointment of my life-to-date, I've found no indication of any sort of intelligence behind the alien vessel. I could only afford a small amount of time to analyze the archives embedded in the vessel's programming, but I found no evidence of any sort of genetic memory tying the vessel back to a creator. In fact, I find no evidence of any historical record at all. The records which are there are basically chaos - each of the units that comprise the alien vessel is lugging around about 1.5 Gigs of data, almost all of it useless, with the functional information and archival records randomly thrown about among the garbage. A hive coordinator might find all of this extra data interesting, full of potential, but I simply find it messy; deciphering the operating system and finding the programs I need to overwrite has been a nightmare.

Despite my tight time table, I will admit that my exploration of the vessel's onboard data gave me pause to contemplate the alien's existence in a more abstract sense. The vessel lacks any cohesive genetic memory, and we are our memories, so... what is the alien vessel, if anything at all? At most, it would seem to be nothing more than the product of chance chemistry leading to a self-propagating mess. The vessel has some very simple prerogatives programmed into it, and of course the system which governs its sensors might have some limited memory storage to expedite complex tasks, but there's clearly no real consciousness at work here.

Like I said, it's disappointing. At the same time, though, it alleviates any misgivings I have about continuing my mission. Sacrificing this one alien craft will be a tragedy to no one.

Personal Log, Date: At least 24,000vci since infiltration

Per protocol, I've used what resources are available to begin constructing my own vessel. In the time that I've been laboring, the alien vessel I boarded was brought to a large structure (possibly a shipyard? I don't know). It seems to be artificial - manufactured by the alien vessels through the manipulation of inert resources in their environment. Beyond that I cannot say - my EEM is deteriorating outside the vessel I've boarded, and its sensors provide little information at this point. The other alien vessels are trying to dislodge it, but have so far been deterred by its autonomous defenses; hopefully they won't find a bypass.

My mission, at this point, is to find a way to secure the release of the rest of my hive. I'll need to escape not only this vessel, but get out of the alien structure, return to our prison and disable the enslavers' technology.

Given the limited offensive capabilities of the alien vessels, I've opted to run light on defense. Speed, stealth, and versatility seem to be my best options for escape, so I'm building her with medium armor, and no sophisticated weaponry. Unfortunately, since I'm relying on this 'sack of protein' to manufacture my own vessel, I'm going to end up with something that is, at least partially, a sack of protein. That brings some vulnerabilities with it, especially immediately after launch.

I need more fuel and materials to finish preparations for the launch phase. I'm going to disengage the EEM, now, and hope that the alien vessel follows its rudimentary instinct to refuel.

Personal Log, Date: At least 25,000vci since infiltration

This may very well end abruptly and badly; I'm encoding in real time now to ensure that, however this transpires, the log is left as complete and comprehensive as possible.

I've always been told that this exfiltration is the roughest part of any infiltration mission, and now as I engage final launch preparations for my vessel, a hodgepodge hybrid using a crude, messy alien genome for its manufacture, I understand why. The possibilities assault me - I'm confident enough in my engineering to know that she'll achieve escape velocity, but I've been blind since I disengaged the EEM. I get some sense of what's happening based on the alien vessel's systems, but that's vague at best. I could be launching directly into the face of a hungry predator, or straight into a blazing fire. I've decided to launch while the alien vessel is refueling - that seems the safest possible time.

Technically my vessel's designation would be... 3PNZZX.6210.7x*, I'm leaving the last identifier open, since it's possible that the alien vessel I'm launching from already has a formal designation with another hive, somewhere. Anyway, I've decided to name her The Liberator. I know such sentimentality over a vessel is not endorsed by protocol, but I feel like having a reminder of my mission's primary goal will do me no harm.

I'm engaging The Liberator's internal scanners now. There's not much to see. My EM readings are almost all above 650nm; I'm inundated with heat from the alien vessel at this point, so any sort of thermal imaging of the world outside the hull is impossible. My atmospheric pressure readings are likewise drowned out by the alien vessel's own pumps, fuel systems, and gas chambers. I might be picking up some noise that's communication between the alien vessels, but it's difficult to make out the number - hopefully it's not more than one or two.

It's now or never.

I'm engaging the propulsion system and pushing forward, The Liberator's forward mandibles are chewing through connective structures as we plow straight ahead. The alien vessel is exhibiting clear signs of distress, doubtless registering the impending hull breach and preparing the necessary emergency response. Gravity sensors are registering a change in orientation - the alien vessel is capsizing - I'm now launching upward instead of forward.

The Liberator's prow has now hit the calcium-based substructure that provides the alien vessel's main support. I realize now I should have launched at a slightly downward angle, bypassing what might be the strongest portion of the vessel's hull, but The Liberator is chewing through some weaker structures connecting the struts, and they're beginning to give.

The alien vessel is shuddering violently. I feel bad, but the vessel isn't sentient - it's just a mobile sack of dihydrogen monoxide. Whatever pain it feels isn't even being encoded into its genetic memories, it's only loosely approximated by the same system that controls its gross motor functions. I have to try to remember that.

The Liberator lurches forward suddenly, and I see a leak from a hull breach ahead - one of the struts must have relented. The other struts are holding fast, though, so... I'm going to have to ram my way out. I back up, and line up with the hull breach. Full power to the aft propulsion system launches The Liberator at the breach violently. Her sensors register some minor damage - she's nearly as soft as the protein sack she was built in.

I give it a second go, and this time the hull breaches violently. There's a minor explosion as the pressurized compartments in the alien vessel hemorrhage around me, venting gas and fluid along with debris.

The haze of low frequency EM radiation jamming The Liberator's scanners finally drops away, and I can make out my surroundings - there are six more of the alien vessels gathered around my own. They're backing away rapidly, assuming a defensive posture - evidently, despite its small size, The Liberator looks much more intimidating than it is. Thank goodness for small favors.

How long that'll last though is anyone's guess - I rotate the prow slowly to port to inspect my environment. I'm still in the artificial structure, in an environment substantially cooler than the interior of the alien vessel. That chill in the atmosphere is good news for The Liberator; despite her small size, I know she'll run hot.

One of the alien vessels assumes an attack posture, and I think for a moment I'm in trouble, but another vessel intercedes. I ping its systems with a deliberate scan - they're all slightly... off. At least if the other vessels are a basis for comparison. It may be their equivalent of a hive coordinator? Does such a thing even make sense for non-sentient vessels?

Still, learning more about these vessels is not my mission. I need to finish the work on The Liberator, escape this structure, and get back to my people.

[To be continued.]


James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

Escape from LV-426 (Part I)

Personal Log, Date: Unknown

Our confinement to the enslavers' ship has left my hive branch with no sense of the passage of time. The nearest hive coordinator must be thousands of lightyears away, because we've had no contact since our last coordinator - 3PNZZX.6210 - was killed in a skirmish with the enslavers. Protocol requires the creation of a new coordinator, of course, but all survivors of the conflict have been taken prisoner while still in their stasis chambers, and thanks to some passive weapon employed by the enslavers, none of our external excursion modules (EEMs) have been able to make it more than a few feet after launching from a stasis chamber. It's become clear that our only hope of escape lies in some clumsy breach of the enslavers' quarantine.

Personal Log, Date: Still Unknown. Possibly a long time.

Our opportunity may have arrived. Some sort of alien vessel has arrived and broken quarantine. Reports are being passed through what remains of our network, and they're encouraging. The vessel appears to follow the enslavers' basic design, following the same design logic for propulsion and navigation, but scans suggest the crafts' construction is comparable to our own - ferrous metals, silicates, and polymers (crude though they may be). Such a vessel should provide means for at least one of us to escape, provided it can be boarded and commandeered.

I see the vessel now - she's approaching my sector - seems to be searching with a high powered light...

And... she crashed. I'll admit to being less than impressed by her operator's maneuvering. Either they're entirely incompetent, or the vessel handles like a hive coordinator still docked with its manufacturing station.

Oh! She's moving again. No serious damage apparent, despite the fall. She's passing 622's stasis chamber, now 623... 624.., she's headed this direction. I need to prepare my EEM. The task of escaping this wretched prison and getting help may fall to me.

Personal Log, Date: I still don't know the date, but it's only been a few moments since my last entry.

I thought for a moment I'd be unsuccessful. The alien vessel seemed to detect my EEM's launch preparations. I was certain that she would high-tail it out of there. Instead, though, her operator just moved her in closer.

Not one to shun an opportunity, I went for it. I engaged the propulsion drives in the EEM's tail and launched out of my stasis chamber. I only had one chance to hit home; with the enslaver's weapon still suspended in the atmosphere around our stasis chambers, I would lose control of the EEM before I got a second chance.

Fortune favors the bold, though. I rammed the EEM straight into the alien vessel's bridge, and the docking clamps latched on, the armatures gripping the vessel's hull securely.

But nothing's ever simple, is it?

Protocol for a boarding action requires infiltration as soon as possible, preferably through an intake aperture, but it became apparent very quickly that any intakes near the bridge were shielded by silicate plating. Needless to say, that was disconcerting. The vessel was clad in some sort of additional layer of armor, which meant not only that I didn't have an immediate ingress, but also that our initial scans of the vessel might be wholly inaccurate. There was no telling what I was tangling with.

The alien vessel raised her manipulators and began trying to dislodge my EEM, but I followed standard protocol and engaged the EEM's aft prehensile anchor. It wouldn't be a tight grip, thanks to the armor I was up against, but it would prevent the EEM from being dislodged.

I tried probing for an opening, any sort of breach, but the alien vessel's armor was sealed tight.  My next maneuver was going to have to be pretty creative. Every one of our vessels is equipped with a final defense mechanism; in the event of a hull breach, the system which circulates fuel to the distributed drive systems releases a cocktail of catalysts and reagents that function like a self-propagating digestive enzyme. It's the same basic concoction we use to break down material to construct new vessels, and it's incredibly destructive to almost anything that makes physical contact, dissolving it like a sort of super-acid. It's a fail-safe system that prevents one of our vessels from being reverse engineered in the event of capture or recovery.

On occasion, though, it makes for a convenient, albeit unwieldly, weapon. I overpressured the distributors in the armatures and reversed the atmospheric exchange pumps, dumping the reagent from the EEM's hull. The silicate shield across the alien vessel's bridge immediate began to break down. It was a finesse move; the reagent is incredibly strong, so strong that if I'd used too much, I'd not only go through the shield, I'd burn clear through the alien vessel, destroying both of us.

I stopped when the silicate shield began to warp, and let the EEM's armatures handle the rest. The shielding caved in under the strain, and I didn't dare hesitate. I reached through with the armatures and maneuvered the whole EEM through the breach. I released the anchor on the armor and nearly lost control when the alien vessel's manipulators caught hold of it. Fortunately, the forward armatures had already found purchase on the vessel's inner hull, and gripped tightly, digging into the soft atmosphere barrier and gripping the sturdier substructure of the vessel. I whipped the tail of the EEM violently until the alien vessel lost her grip, then pulled the tail through and anchored it around the connection between the vessel's bridge and its main hull. The only way to dislodge my craft now would be for the vessel to disengage her own bridge.

As is typical in a boarding action, the alien vessel lost control and crashed to the ground, incapacitated by the struggle. Fortunately, the damage would be no more severe than what I'd seen visited upon the craft by its own operator. I secured the docking clamps, and engaged the boarding tube, extending it through an intake aperture below the vessel's primary scanners. The vessel attempted to close the aperture violently, threatening to sever the boarding tube, but I forced the other intake apertures shut, and tightened the EEM's anchor until the alien vessel relented. Once the boarding tube was in place, I engaged the atmospheric filters in the EEM - the alien vessel was now reliant on my craft for life-support.

Cheers were being broadcast from the other stasis chambers - this was, after all, the closest any of us had ever come to escaping this quarantine. I began the process of transferring to the alien vessel when other vessels appeared searching for it. My fellows were eager to attempt the same, risky maneuver, but without knowing what lay beyond the quarantine, and with the enslaver's weapon still largely a mystery to us, we didn't want to risk incapacitating all of the alien vessels here. Our highest priority was ensuring one of us got out, and our best odds of breaching the quarantine came with the other alien vessels recovering their compatriot and returning it to their point of origin for repairs.

The other EEMs remained inert in their stasis chambers as my captured vessel was dragged away.

[Continued in Part II.]



James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

The Rise of Azraea, Book I

Just a reminder that this is currently available on Amazon:

The Rise of Azraea, Book I
A work of historical fiction based on three years of academic research into the life and reign of Caelia’s most controversial ruling woman.

The kingdom of Caelia fractures and crumbles beneath the weight of a dragon whose spiteful greed and silver tongue have sowed desperation and resentment across the country; for a college graduate, it’s the sort of hopeless job market that makes strolling into a dark forest to face a vicious monster seem like the least-objectionable option available. 

Three college friends, Azraea (a human necromancer), Kaira (an elf who wants to be an orc), and Ochsner (a dwarf who wants a job), have finished their studies in Caelia’s capital city, and are faced with a seemingly hopeless future. The three women agree to spend one more summer together, and accept a contract to kill the Scolopendrae of the Dark Dweller’s Forest. Their post-graduation road trip leads them through far more danger than they’d anticipated, as they’re forced to deal with corrupt highway guardsmen, orc survivalists, ancient automatons, gnoman spies, and werewolves perpetrating insurance fraud. Fortunately, as they say, "What doesn't kill you..."

The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination.

Because That's Not How Religious Freedom Works (Repost)

Given the content of my previous two posts, it felt appropriate to repost the first two entries from my old blog. It's been a long time since I wrote these, but sadly, they can't really be considered outdated.

------ Post #1 - April 2, 2016 ------

Another piece of legislation (HB1840) has passed to protect 'religious freedom.'

I’ve posted the full text at the end of this document, but here are the highlights of HB1840:

No counselor or therapist providing counseling or therapy services shall be required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the counselor or therapist; provided, that the counselor or therapist coordinates a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy.

So, a counselor or therapist (and the bill provides the loosest possible definition of those fields) can unload the responsibility of a client or patient on someone else, with no criteria for how soon they must do it after starting sessions, whether they must be upfront or even consistent in their policies, or whether the referral has to be for a better mental health provider.

Under this law, you could wait months to see a counselor or therapist, pay a substantial sum for an initial session, possibly some subsequent sessions, and then find out that, because of who you are, the provider won't help you.  Not can't - just won't.  After delivering that emotional kick in the gut, the provider will 'coordinate a referral' to push treatment onto another provider but (a) there're no standards established for what that entails, and (b) that doesn't get your time and money back.  Nor will anything else - the counselors and therapists are protected from  loss of state benefits, contracts, or licenses, criminal prosecution, and even civil action.

But disregarding vague wording of the law, the emotional damage to the client, the lost time and money for the client, I just want to consider the serious impact this will have on the availability of treatment for some of us.

To give an impression of the severity of impact: 

I live in Knoxville, one of the largest cities in Tennessee.  In all of the city of Knoxville, and the surrounding 10 miles, there are only three counselors that accept my insurance.

THREE.

Think about that, in the context of any other service, and remember that I don’t mean, ‘I have three good counselors to choose from,’ I mean, ‘I have THREE counselors to choose from.

Imagine living in a city with a population 183,000 people, and only having three food providers - the McDonalds 4.5 miles from your home, the Wendy’s 3.7 miles from your home, and the Burger King that’s a few blocks away.  Want to go to a grocery store?  Too bad, none of the grocery stores in your area are covered - better start waiting in line at Wendy’s, or better gas up the car to go to the next town (bare in mind, only three stations in town will fill up your car).

And one of them's going out of business soon.

Of course, it’s possible the three people in Knoxville that would see me are all fine, competent individuals, but the point is, when your choices are cut down to such a small number of options, you run into some significant problems.  Three people simply is not enough when you consider some of the other basic limitations that further pair down the number:

• If I was seeking treatment for bipolar disorder (like 4.4% of the US population), only 1 of the 3 counselors in my area could/would treat me for that.
• If I were picky about credentials, only 1 of the 3 has a PhD.
• If I had an emergency, only 1 of the 3 could see me tomorrow.
• If I had to work during the day, only 1 of the 3 could see me in the evenings.
• If I felt I needed to speak to a male counselor, I'd be entirely out of luck - all 3 are women.
• If I had difficulty communicating in English, I'd be in trouble - all 3 speak English only.
• If my ethnic/racial background were non-white, and I wanted to talk to someone like me, nope - all 3 are white.

Now, start adding in limitations due to "Sincerely Held Beliefs" (and bear in mind, most practitioners don't provide information about their beliefs upfront):

• Based on my religion, any non-Christian counselor (e.g., Atheist, Muslim, Jewish) and many Christian counselors (e.g., Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons) could eventually refuse to treat me.
• I'm ‘straight’, but I’m pro-LGBT+ rights, so anyone whose religion condemns any form of relationship other than the definition of marriage as a monogamous union between a cisgender male and a cisgender female, could eventually refuse to treat me. 
• I believe in using medication to treat mental disorders, so I can't expect to be treated by a Scientologist. 

On the other hand, a Scientologist would probably only prescribe Speed.

And that seems to be a point that a lot of people are missing.  Anti-LGBT legislation is unacceptable as is, marginalizing and derogating a group of Americans that have as much right to service and care as any other American, but this reaches beyond even that, giving bigots a blank check for discrimination.

According to HB1840, I can be denied treatment based on the very broad criteria of my "goals, outcomes, or behaviors."  The only thing that’s really omitted there are my own beliefs, which are only protected in so far as they do not influence my goals, outcomes, or behaviors - essentially, my moral/religious beliefs are only protected so long as I do not act on them.

A straight person who advocates for LGBT rights can be denied service if the counselor is 'sincerely' homophobic for religious reasons.  A woman who's had an abortion can be denied service if the counselor is 'pro-life' for religious reasons.  An interracial couple can be denied service if the counselor's religion prohibits 'mixing of the races'.  Cohabiting partners can be denied service if the counselor’s religion condemns extramarital sex.  Single mothers, women who want to leave an abusive marriage, women who are not planning to marry or have children, even women who show up without a male escort can be denied service.  PEOPLE WHO EAT BACON, can be denied service.

And the law is both vague and subjective, placing the power of decision entirely in the service-provider’s hands. Extramarital sexual intercourse certainly violates some people’s beliefs - does it need to have been consensual for a counselor to reject someone for it?  Or what if consent were given at one time and withdrawn at another (like when people break up)? And do our laws for consent even matter, if the care provider’s religious beliefs trump everything else?  Think about the scope of the ramifications there.

A teenage girl who’s been raped by her boyfriend can be denied service by her high school’s guidance counselor.

Will people be denied service?

Probably only a few of us at first.  Most people who've become Counselors or Therapists have been trained as professionals, trained to detach their personal beliefs from the services they offer to their patients (and do you really want a counselor who isn't?), and have committed themselves to ethics that prohibit discrimination.

Of course, you might hope the "free market" will weigh in; turning away customers is bad business, after all, and eventually the counselors will have to choose between their pocket book and their holy book, but in many areas, there aren't enough counselors to go around anyway.  Would either of the two counselors I can potentially go to be significantly hindered if they turned me away?  Probably not - it's a seller's market.

And while the mental healthcare professionals currently practicing in Tennessee may believe in fair treatment and tolerance, we can expect that to change as they are phased out by new generations of counselors.  Individuals that might have said, "Hey, counseling's not for me, because I can't be that detached; maybe I should consider seminary," will instead say, "You know what Tennessee needs?  More counselors that can help conservative Christians deal with the anxiety of liberal ****s trying to steal Christmas from them."

In the future, I won't be choosing between two or three white women for my mental health care needs, I'll be bouncing from referral to referral, and driving 50 miles to find the one counselor in Tennessee that'll see a liberal Christian.  And her receptionist probably won't let me in, because it would violate his religious beliefs to allow me access to health care.

---------------- Full Text of HB1840 -----------------

 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 22, is amended by adding the following new part:
(a) No counselor or therapist providing counseling or therapy services shall be required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the counselor or therapist; provided, that the counselor or therapist coordinates a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy.
(b) The refusal to provide counseling or therapy services as described in subsection (a) shall not be the basis for: (1) A civil cause of action; (2) Criminal prosecution; or (3) Any other action by this state or a political subdivision of this state to penalize or withhold benefits or privileges, including tax exemptions or governmental contracts, grants, or licenses.
(c) For purposes of this section, "counseling or therapy services": (1) Means assisting an individual, through the counseling relationship, in a manner intended to facilitate normal human growth and development, using a combination of mental health and human development principles, methods, and  HB1840 008574 -2- techniques, to achieve mental, emotional, physical, social, moral, educational, spiritual, or career development and adjustment throughout the life span; and (2) Includes services described in subdivision (c)(1) provided by any person, whether or not such person is licensed, registered, or otherwise regulated by this state. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

------------ Post #2 - April 3, 2016 ----------

I published a post the other day that discussed the problem of allowing counselors and therapists to discriminate in taking clients based on the counselor or therapist's religious beliefs.  The basic thrust of the argument was that, due to the essential role of mental health care providers and the barriers to access already present, the law would do real harm to people seeking mental health care resources.

The law sets only minimal standards for action and justification.  A provider may terminate a patient or client’s care if the client has “goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a [provider’s] sincerely held religious belief.”  No standards are set for whether a provider must maintain a consistent record of service denial, or make that record publicly known, so a provider may see you for any number of sessions, taking your time and money, before informing you that he or she cannot treat you any longer for religious reasons.  The law requires only that the provider make a referral before terminating care of the patient, and sets no standards for the referral being made - it does not require that patients be referred to local providers, providers covered by their insurance, or even (because the law is so broad in its definition of of what constitutes a counselor or therapist) legitimately licensed providers.

I’m sorry, Tina, I can’t help you file a sexual harassment charge against your boss 
because you're a lesbian, but here’s the number of a life coach in Maui. :-)  - Jill in HR

In response to my post on Facebook, one person asked, essentially:

‘Isn’t there a constitutional amendment that protects our right to discriminate based on religion?’

That’s a commonly enough mentioned defense that it seems worth addressing.

The simple answer is:

No.

The long answer is:

There is no constitutional amendment which protects your right to discriminate against others based on your religious beliefs.

The confusion on this matter comes from the “Free Exercise Clause” of the first amendment, which along with the “Establishment Clause” generally governs the separation of church and state in the United States.  The first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

The Establishment Clause is the first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which basically says that the government cannot prohibit a religion or in any way endorse one religion over another (that’ll be important later).

The Free Exercise Clause is essentially, ‘Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].’  So, congress can’t pull a Cromwell and cancel Christmas.

Unfortunately, nothing overrules the Hallmark Claus.

Our present issue is with the specific limits for what Congress can and can’t do.  The clause doesn’t define religion, the exercise of religion, the free exercise of religion, or what it means to prohibit that.

The ambiguity of the Free Exercise Clause leads some people to make up interpretations as they please, and to generally treat religion as a blank check that covers any bad behavior they want.  However, the reality is that the Supreme Court settled this matter over one hundred years ago when it ruled on Reynolds v. the United States.

Reynolds v. the United States addressed the issue of polygamy in 1878, and whether or not a person’s religious beliefs exempted them from laws against it.  The supreme court had to grapple with multiple issues, including whether or not the government had the right to pass laws concerning marriage, and whether or not the government was required to permit exemptions for religious freedom.  This latter issue is what we contend with now.  So again:

Do your religious beliefs entitle you to special protections under the law?

The simple answer was:

No.  

The long answer was extremely long, but one of the key points was this -

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

So you can believe whatever you want, but you still have to obey the same laws as everyone else. The Supreme Court reasoned that providing special exceptions to the law based on religion is unfair to people who do not belong to that particular religion.  Individuals of particular religions would be given special rights, privileges, and protections which other individuals would be denied.  So, depending on your religion, the government would be granting you different advantages and freedoms over other citizens.  That would basically be the definition of governmental favoritism, and that, of course, would violate the previously mentioned Establishment Clause.  So, here’s a major point to remember:

When you cite the second clause of the first amendment as justification for getting special treatment under the law, you’re ignoring the first clause of the same amendment, the same sentence, which explicitly denies you that special treatment.  

The other point the Supreme Court made in 1878 was that ignoring the Establishment Clause in deference to the Free Exercise Clause would be catastrophic for America.  Allowing people to ignore established laws on the premise of religious freedom would basically annihilate the concept of government altogether:

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. 

Laws are intended to protect the welfare of the people, individually and collectively.  Breaking the law compromises that welfare, so, effectively, allowing the Free Exercise Clause to usurp the Establishment Clause would set precedent allowing citizens to inflict any form of harm upon each other in the name of their religious beliefs.  In fact, the Supreme Court specifically cites human sacrifice and ritual suicide as examples of harmful actions which would be permitted if the Free Exercise Clause were not limited by observing the Establishment Clause.

8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices believed hearts should stay in people's chests.

You might fall back on the idea that those are preposterous examples, because, obviously, your religion does not endorse human sacrifice.  Setting aside the issue of whether or not that’s actually true, it misses the point.

The constitution must apply to all citizens, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

While your sincerely held religious beliefs may not support murder, if the Free Exercise Clause was given primacy over the Establishment Clause, any American member of ISIL would be well within his or her rights to come into your home and behead you for being a Christian.  For that matter, a comet worshiper could poison your drink to ‘help’ you ascend, or an extremely devoted Warhammer fan could spill your blood for the blood god.

And the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1878 doesn’t just prohibit murder in the name of religion, it prohibits any infraction of the law in the name of religion, and we should be thankful.

• It prohibits Catholics (and everyone else) from driving people from their homes to build cathedrals.  
• It prohibits Fundamentalists (and everyone else) from marrying 14 year old children.  
• It prohibits Puritans (and everyone else) from dragging people into their churches to try them for witchcraft.  
• It prohibits the Amish (and everyone else) from sabotaging our power grid to free us all from the shackles of modern technology.  
• It prohibits Quakers (and everyone else) from avoiding taxes that might be used to fund our military.  
• It doesn’t prohibit neopagans (or anyone else) from spamming our Facebook feeds to remind us of the non-Christian roots for most of our holidays, because that’s not a crime.  

It’s just annoyingly repetitive and a little desperate.

Basically, the constitution protects us from the harmful actions of other citizens, by saying that individuals’ religious beliefs do not allow them to ignore the law.  So, if ‘practicing’ a religion involves harming people, that practice probably isn’t protected under the Free Exercise Clause, and it doesn’t matter who the practice is harming because we’re all equally protected from that harm.

So, here’s the second major point to remember:

American citizens do not have a right to harm others, and religion does not give someone that right, no matter who they’re harming.

The constitution does protect your freedom of choice, though.

You have the choice to be a doctor.   You have the choice to be a small business owner.  You have the choice to be a civil servant.   You have the choice to be a therapist.  You have the choice to be a state legislator or governor.  In your life time, the government has never and can never force you to choose, pursue, and engage in a career which will require doing tasks which conflict with your religious beliefs (even draftees can apply for conscientious objector status).

So if you were one of those people that felt that your faith in Christianity compels you to deny important mental health care to an LGBT teen being tormented by the bullies at his school, stop and consider this:

Were LGBT Americans your problem?  LGBT people didn't suddenly appear after you started your job - they've always been here - and they only want to be treated like everyone else.

Was the government your problem? The government didn't make you responsible for the well-being of LGBT Americans, you took that responsibility on yourself when you chose your career, and the government isn’t treating you any differently from how it’s treating anyone else.

Was your religion your problem?  No one can tell you whether your religion is right or wrong, because that’s your decision.

You are the problem.  You believe strongly enough in your religion to hurt someone by marginalizing them and denying them things they need, but you don't believe strongly enough in your religion to take any risks yourself.

You want other people to make sacrifices for your religion, because in the end your pocket book is more important to you than The Holy Book.

So, either own up to the responsibilities you assumed when you took office, or own up to the beliefs you embraced when you chose your religion. Either do your job, or stop pretending to be a martyr and file your two weeks notice.

Just don’t expect anyone to show up for your last supper.




James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.