Нашел такую практику в Вирджинии
Абонемент на семью -175 долларов в месяц.
Сейчас это движение врачей лобирует Конгресс, что бы позволили оплачивать эти абонементы с HSA.
|You are viewing janus_n's network page|
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More
I haven’t seen the Ken Burns Vietnam series yet and given my indifference to Burns, not to mention my outright hostility to his anti-intellectual and anti-scholar claims that professional historians don’t want to engage popular audiences, which is bullshit, I may or may not get around to it. But it has led to a number of editorials about Vietnam, some of which discussing things Burns did not and others reminding us of key issues. I don’t know what Burns said about the pervasive and pernicious lie that protestors spat on veterans, but there is absolutely no actual evidence suggesting this is true. Nothing at all. And the man who exposed this myth, Jerry Lembcke (who I got to know because I interviewed him for my logging book because of his organizing in the 70s) has a good op-ed about this.
But you don’t believe the stories, right? she asked. Acknowledging that I could not prove the negative — that they were not true — I went on to say there is no corroboration or documentary evidence, such as newspaper reports from the time, that they are true. Many of the stories have implausible details, like returning soldiers deplaning at San Francisco Airport, where they were met by groups of spitting hippies. In fact, return flights landed at military air bases like Travis, from which protesters would have been barred. Others include claims that military authorities told them on returning flights to change into civilian clothes upon arrival lest they be attacked by protesters. Trash cans at the Los Angeles airport were piled high with abandoned uniforms, according to one eyewitness, a sight that would surely have been documented by news photographers — if it had existed.
And some of the stories have more than a little of a fantasy element: Some claim the spitters were young girls, an image perhaps conjured in the imaginations of veterans suffering the indignities of a lost war.
Listeners, I speculated, are loath to question the truth of the stories lest aspersion be seemingly cast on the authenticity of the teller. The war in Vietnam was America’s longest war at the time, and its first defeat. The loss to such a small, underdeveloped and outgunned nation was a tough pill for Americans to swallow, many still basking in post-World War II triumphalism. The image of protesters spitting on troops enlivened notions that the military mission had been compromised, even betrayed, by weak-kneed liberalism in Congress and seditious radicalism on college campuses. The spitting stories provided reassuring confirmation that had it not been for those duplicitous fifth-columnists, the Vietnamese would have never beaten us.
The “war at home” phrase captured the idea that the war had been lost on the home front. It was a story line promulgated by Hollywood within which veteran disparagement became a kind of “war story,” a way of credentialing the warrior bona fides of veterans who may have felt insecure about their service in Vietnam. In “First Blood,” the inaugural Rambo film, the protagonist, John Rambo, flashes back to “those maggots at the airport, spittin’, callin’ us baby killers and all kinds of vile crap.” The series supported the idea that decisions in Washington had hamstrung military operations. “Apocalypse Now” fed outright conspiracy theories that the C.I.A.’s secret war run from Washington had undercut the military mission. “Coming Home” and “Hamburger Hill” played on male fears of unfaithful wives and girlfriends, a story line hinting that female perfidy and the feminist subversion of warrior morale had cost us victory.
The whole thing is really important. When I lecture on the Vietnam War, this is a huge part of my lecture, because nearly every student has heard this myth and they all believe it. It’s simply an accepted truth now, a truth not that dissimilar from how southern propaganda framed the War to Defeat Treason in Defense of Slavery for a century. It’s tremendously damaging and helps play into people freaking out by football players kneeling during the national anthem today. It’s a myth that doesn’t just need to be debunked. It needs to be defeated and destroyed and discredited.
Interesting piece here about saving brutalist buildings in New York before it’s too late. If saving a brutalist building is worthwhile in the first place.
Architecture, which seems the most permanent of the arts because it appears solid and grounded, is the most ephemeral. When it’s gone, it’s gone. Imagine that every celluloid print and digital file of “Manhattan” had, this past summer, been burned or wiped; and all that remained of the film were the accounts of its fans and critics, until the work passed out of living memory. Because our current historic preservation movement began, in the middle of the last century, with the loss of Beaux-Arts piles like New York City’s old Pennsylvania Station, we tend to think of the duty of conservation applying to places that look antique, rather than to places, like Sasaki’s plaza and fountain, that still look futuristic. The original Pennsylvania Station, designed to resemble the monuments of the Roman Empire, seemed ancient indeed. But at the time of its demolition, in 1963, it was only fifty years old—the same age as many of the masterpieces of the nineteen-sixties and seventies that are now subject to demolition. Perhaps there is something about the half century that creates a blind spot: too recent for reverence, too distant for love—or even understanding. To the supersonic sensibilities of 1963, the idea that a train station should evoke the Roman Baths of Caracalla was perhaps as enervating as it is to us, in our era of swipes and likes, that buildings not constantly beguile, ingratiate, and soothe.
The buildings and landscapes of Brutalism and high modernism—especially those conceived in the swift decade from the advent of the Summer of Love through the Bicentennial—chose not to charm. They chose toughness and complexity, boldness and subtlety. They were sometimes admonishing and always hortatory. They juxtaposed discipline and delight, caution and comfort, in surprising yet gratifying ways. They were not always easy company, but they were good company. Of their users, they sometimes required, but always rewarded, active engagement. They represented a willful attempt to exhort and accommodate both the aspirations and troubles of their turbulent times—aspirations and troubles that especially affected the central business districts and inner cities in which they were often built. When we destroy these works, we lose something of a moment when many who were trying to communicate to our culture something about itself—in the limited medium of the urban landscape—were less concerned with entertainment than with truth.
On the other hand, many of these buildings are utter monstrosities that physically repel people and were not built with actual people in mind. Of course, architectural has its nostalgia the same as everything else and maybe, much like we are sad that the original Penn Station was torn down, people in 2050 will be outraged that we tore down some great piece of brutalist architecture. I remain slightly skeptical, largely because I hate most of it
Here’s a very plausible plan for how we can redress the situation if it’s proven that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia:
If that is shown, then the first step is obvious. Trump should resign or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached.
The second step should be obvious as well: Pence should resign or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached. He benefited from the criminal (and treasonous) conspiracy just as much as Trump. He shouldn’t benefit even more by becoming the residual President.
Under the law as it is, this leaves Paul Ryan as President. And the hard moral question that Ryan would then face is whether he should remain as President. By hypothesis, we’re assuming the office was effectively stolen from the legitimate winner by a criminal and treasonous act of the (previous) leader of Ryan’s own party. Ryan’s being President is just the fruit of that poisonous tree. So should he just ignore that? Or should he acknowledge the wrong, and act to make it right?
There are lots of things Paul Ryan “should” do, like repudiate the agenda he’s devoted his political career to. It doesn’t strike me as much of a plan.
But that doesn’t mean this crime couldn’t be fixed politically. And recognizing just how it could is something we should be talking about right now.
President Ryan would have the right to nominate a Vice-President. That right is specified in the 25th Amendment. That nominee then becomes Vice-President once confirmed by a majority of both houses. That’s how Gerald Ford became Vice President. And that’s how he eventually became President without ever running for that office.
If Ryan became President because the Trump/Pence campaign committed treason, who should he nominate as his Vice President? The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become the President.
Of course, this is the sort of thing that’s unimaginable in Washington today. But that’s why we need to start imagining it, now.
It’s easy if you try!
Without doubt, if Ryan did the right thing, that would be the most extraordinary event in the history of America since the Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter.
If Paul Ryan sprouted wings and flew to Mars in 6 hours, this would be the most extraordinary event in America since the Louisiana Purchase! Which is why we need to start talking about it RIGHT NOW.
But unlike that, this event would build the union, not divide it.
When I ponder scenarios that will end partisan and sectional rancor in the United States, the one I keep coming back to is “President Hillary Clinton.”
And if he did it, then Clinton should embrace the spirit of cross partisan decency and nominate Ryan, or a Republican, as her Vice President. At least for the balance of her first term, the frame of adults-behaving-like-adults could live.
I don’t get it. Why not “Clinton’s Vice President should be a legal scholar with a viable vision for political change in America. Call him “Larry L.” She should then resign, giving that president an unassailable MANDATE to unilaterally enact campaign finance reform.” I mean, wishes are totally free!
До останнього часу меморіальний центр "Яд-Вашем", відмовлявся нагороджувати званням «Праведника народів світу» одного з чільних керівників нацистського військового апарату, посилаючись на «колективну відповідальність». З цієї ж причини проти нагородження Канариса виступали й дослідники Центру Симона Візенталя, котрий спеціалізується на розшуку нацистських злочинців.