DoGoodThenGo

Saw the entire series and loved it. Where else in an all female cast does the "ugly duckling" of the show (Nurse Chummy) not only get a man, but beat her more beautiful and glamorous friends to the altar and motherhood? Really enjoyed seeing Nurse Jenny Lee grow both professionally as a nurse and personally. When she first starts out it is clear Nurse Lee was a slightly priggish product of the British middle-classes who felt almost literal disgust for the living conditions if not the patients themselves. In the first episode when she is examining the woman who had a bad case of VD, her facial expressions spoke volumes. We see Nurse Lee afterwards scrubbing her hands in act worthy of Lady MacBeth. Nurse Lee came to realize there was a whole lot she didn't know about the world from (child) prostitution, forced adoption, inter-racial adultery, to domestic violence. But gradually as she grows as a nurse/mid-wife so does her view of the world and the people in it. Was really sad to see she let her "second chance" with that young man who really loved her slip by. Her shock and sadness upon discovering the father of the unmarried young woman's baby she is caring for was him. Story of many a young girl's life; you make a man wait around while you "sort things out" naively thinking nothing matters in the world but you and he will still be there waiting, then surprise surprise, he has moved on. To her credit Nurse Lee does not fall back into the mistress to a married man trap again, and finally finds a man of her own. Finally it was good to see Nurse Lee hold her own at the London Hospital assignment (despite those horrible uniforms) and speak to Matron about what she felt was grave professional doubts over a doctor. The other nurses simply quit or kept out of his way, but Nurse Lee spoke up; and for it the Matron saw the makings not only of a good bedside nurse but future administration/management potential as well. On the one hand it is rather sad that in real life "Nurse Lee" did what many nurses of her era did; put away her caps and uniforms for marriage and babies. One wonders how much more she would have grown into nursing had she stuck with things.

Medicare is a great program and is actually very efficient when compared to private insurance. However yes, there is far too much fraud, waste and abuse. Problem is where one group sees such things, others see a food on the table. There are times when the federal government has sought to shut down those who abuse or have committed fraud against Medicare, only to have a judge reinstate because the government did not have the "right to deprive ... of income". For Medicare to truly run effectively and less expensively, it would have to take pages from how many Europeans run such programs. That however would entail far more stringent price controls, service restrictions and so forth than one assumes most Americans would tolerate. Think about it; you don't need several hospitals all within one geographic area all accepting Medicare, but with various census rates and outcomes. Simply choose the one that meets standards of performance and so forth and send everyone there; that however would probably effectively put the rest out of business. Same with pharmacies, suppliers and so forth with equal results for the others. What the federal government could and should do is establish one agency to oversee/set prices/create a formulary for *ALL* federal government health care spending. Everything from medications to supplies and so forth. For something as simple and basic as say Tylenol prices vary depending upon which federal agency is doing the purchasing. VA, Medicare, military, federal government employee health and retiree programs, etc.. all have different rates. Just think what would happen to prices if the federal government used it's vast purchasing power as a whole for healthcare, instead of piecemeal. This is one reason why healthcare is so much cheaper say in EU countries. The government negotiates prices it will pay for everything from aspirin to replacement joints.

Real problem is that at least in the House on both Democratic and Republican side districts have been drawn so tightly that rightly or wrongly those seats are rarely in play. Incumbents fear primary challenges from within their own party, but not so much the other side, and that is where much of today's mess happens. Believe it or not those Tea Party members in the House are voting their district and see themselves as doing what they were sent to Washington D.C. to do; therefore they are likely be in *MORE* trouble going along with the Speaker and certainly the Democrats on some issues than not. What we see going on in Washington is a reflection of the United States in general; that is we have become a highly polarized and in many ways segregated nation than at almost anytime in history. In many instances persons live around others that share the same views, that makes it very difficult say for a body like the House to get things done. The Senate runs on simple majority and those elected to that chamber have more wiggle room when it comes to the persons back home. Senators represent an entire state so unless that entire population in a decent majority is against something, they can take an unfavourable position and afford to lose a votes here and there. You see this with issues like "gay marriage" where even some hardcore Republican senators broke with their party in coming out in favour even if that position doesn't sit well with their entire state. Test will be of course next election to see if they are chucked out or even survive a primary challenge.

After minor changes and signature by HM The Queen, gay marriage will become legal in England and Wales. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/gay-marriage-bill-clears-uk-parliament-29425156.html

No it won't. While the AG for PA has refused the state via another office will still defend. There was no decision on Prop 8, all the SCOTUS did was kick it back to CA saying those who disagreed with the lower court ruling did not have legal standing to challenge. At anytime in future within the statue of limitations (assuming there is one) the State of California can choose to appeal the lower court verdict and take things back before the SC. Purpose of these ACLU and other newly launched court cases is to see if Justice Kennedy's expansive ruling will overturn the thirty some odd state bans and or constitutional amendments against same sex marriage. It is not entirely clear how this will play out and it most certainly means the whole thing in one form or another will go back before the court.

A jury in Florida just found George Zimmerman not guilty on all counts in the death of Trayvon Martin. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-jury-saturday-deliberations/2514233/

Quite honestly I say much of the skin care "battle" is genes and lifestyle. Have been getting compliments on my skin since a child, but really do nothing extraordinary. However one day went with mother for a medical appointment and the nurse said "you mom has such beautiful skin, in fact so do you", then it hit me. Thanks mom! For the record I don't smoke, drink (aside from the a glass of wine with dinner and the occasional cocktail). Do exercise regularly, drink plenty of water, and stay out of sunlight. When it comes to cosmetics and skin care you do realize much of it is just marketing hype. You'll notice most of the claims say you will "appear" years younger. Well appearance is in the eye of the beholder! *LOL* That being said some things to look for in skin care are retinol. Here is a website I've found helpful: Popular makeup & skin care brands: Beautypedia Skin Care & Makeup Reviews

Much of DOMA was dead when San Francisco began marrying same sex couples and a further nail driven into that coffin when MA changed it's marriage laws. Once one state (now eleven or twelve depending upon how you look at things) made gay marriage legal the ground shifted. Unlike say France or Spain where marriage laws are decided by a central government, the United States leaves the matter to states. Indeed the issue never was "gay marriage" per se but the rights and benefits enjoyed by straight married couples and by extension their children. The last bit you see referred to over and over again; you cannot say children born of one legal marriage are more worthy than those of an other. So you either have to scrap all the benefits or hand them out equally, end of story. Those that wrote and passed DOMA couldn't possibly know how the world would look today with so many gay men and women as parents of either their own biological children and or adopted. Each time those children apply for any sort of federal benefit they are (or were) classified as "different". Of course the larger issue is what happens in future to the one thousand and four hundred some odd benefits the federal government bestows on married couples. Many of these came out of an era when women were chattel and did what they were told, in return they were dependent upon men (usually their husbands) for their economic security. This system under some current federal schemes vastly benefits certain women (those that marry well and have limited to little of their own), over those that work their entire lives but remain unmarried.

Just to be clear, only the section of DOMA dealing with restricting federal benefits to same sex married couples was struck down. The remaining parts of the act/law are still in effect. Still all and all a good day for rule of law.

If you are referring to gender reassignment surgery increasing numbers of "transsexuals" are opting to remain as Archie Bunker put it "too much of one, but not enough of the other", that is not having genital surgery. They may take hormone medication, have breast augmentation, etc... but that is where things stop. This is one of the reasons you hear more about gender identity rather than purely transsexual. For some time now follow-up psychological evaluation of post-operative transsexuals found a decent majority were just as unhappy afterwards as before the operation. This dismayed not only researchers but those in the medical field who for years had advocated gender reassignment surgery as a "cure" for the mental illness of gender discomfort. Lone among mental and or physical disorders transgender was the one *disease* where the cure was to mutilate and or remove perfectly healthy parts of a human body, something medicine does not happen normally. If the results of this "cure" did not solve the problem then why go through with it? Indeed many places famous for doing SRS such as the Benjamin Institute actually stopped. Long story short both in the medical and society in general there isn't or wasn't a space for a "third sex" as it were. What do you call someone that looks like a female but still is male below the belt? That question has exploded in light of this post 9/11/01 world where it is nearly impossible to do anything without proper state issued ID. Transgendered women who had "female" ID but male below the belt faced problems everywhere from airports to restrooms. Those without said ID found themselves labeled as in my above example; by what they had below the belt. This meant again as per my example a "passing" transgender female would be forced to *out* herself every time she did anything from apply for employment to a drivers license. All this is why you are seeing all these laws, rulings and otherwise push back against strict interpretation of gender by merely visible clues. However as one has stated previously not everyone sees "non-operative" transgender as "females" and are fighting to place limits on how far things must go. Are you going to send such persons into female locker rooms? Force convents to admit them (or even post-operative) as women?

Saw that story earlier today on the news and have mixed feelings. First am rather shocked these parents are plastering the child's photograph all over the Internet for God and the world to see. Suppose it is part of their campaign to show both the child and themselves are "normal", but still. Am also concerned on several fronts what happens as this "girl" grows older and is no longer easily "passable" as a little girl, more importantly both she and the regular girl students of elementary through high school realize "Coy" is built differently below the belt. Are they going to let this child into the girl's locker rooms at gym? What happens if at ten, eleven or sometime in the future this child decides she is really a he and changes mind?

Know nurses that have no problems with gay men. Even the most effeminate gay male nurse is often welcomed as "one of the girls" and such, but somehow transgender gets up their noses both as patients and or co-workers. I've seen this even in NYC which is supposed to be a very liberal place. In the healthcare sector transgender employees can often get it from both sides, patients and staff. Another transgender nurse one knows had all sorts of problems as both a student and after getting her RN. She went to NS as "female" because that is what her papers said, but her instructor and or charge nurse would get complaints from certain patients about how they didn't want "him" taking care of them. It would take awhile to put two and two together and figure out who "he" was since by all accounts a female nurse had been assigned. OTOH you have some really outstanding nurses out there making a difference: Emmet Phipps, BSN, RN, ACRN | LinkedIn

Cannot speak for or to why much of this is happening but at least for these sort of policy changes put forth by the WH it is part of his vow to make things "eaiser" for LGBT persons without having to go through Congress. This current announcement fits in with previous ones this month such as the DoE removing "Father" and 'Mother" from financial aid form to be replaced by "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". And so it goes. While some females don't have a problem with men or anyone else in the powder room. quite a few still do and they fit transgender into that category. Far as they are concerned a " man is a man is a man", period. Know a few transgender RNs. Three went to nursing school during the 1980's and 1990's and none had an easy time of things. First because they were legally male according to their ID (high school transcripts, birth certificates, etc...) they were informed by those running said programs they would enter and be treated as male nursing students. This meant no visible make-up, nail polish etc.. and they had to wear the uniform assigned to their gender. The last bit created no end of problems as they all had begun hormonal treatments and had feminine figures including a bust. This became visually obvious under the standard "Dr. Kildaire" tunics the programs used for male student nurse's uniforms. At clinical sites they were told under no circumstances could they use the facilities designated for females. If the nurse's restrooms were unisex, fine; however if as with many older hospitals the female nurse's restrooms on the floors were part of the locker room, it was out of bounds. Final insult came at graduation/capping and pinning. None were allowed to attend in female attire and were told to wear whatever was required for male nursing grads. They weren't even allowed to order caps (why do you want one? male nurses don't wear them) as the women were. Happily some either got theirs from sympathetic cohorts or went out and got them from Kay's or elsewhere afterwards.

Pipe: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mara-keisling/a-huge-small-step-the-obama-administration-delivers-big_b_3444713.html?utm_hp_ref=social-security http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/social_security_administration_removes_surgical_requirement_for_changing_gender_designation/

In one week Rhode Island and Delaware with Minnesota to follow by the end of next. Clearly whatever religious objections persons have with "gay marriage" aren't seeping out to the general populace. Persons thought the *conservative* religious including African Americans of Maryland would doom that governor's/state's efforts and that didn't happen either. What has happened is over several generations more and more Americans have become less religious. Even those that claim to hold such values often have a very wide and loose interpretation of what it means to practice a certain faith. It is worth noting that many countries with strong Catholic Church followers such as Brazil, Uruguay. and most recently France have "gay marriage", despite the strong disapproval and efforts by that body. What we have seen here in America and what has happened all over Europe is the increasing separation of religion from politics. Elected officials in many areas of the United States simply no longer have any fear of what "the Church" or religious leaders and or their followers can do to their careers. In most if not all the recent cases of "gay marriage" being passed in several States the push came from the governor either out front or behind the scenes. Obviously these men and one woman do not feel in any way threatened by whatever established faiths in their states. Indeed neither obviously did Obama with is famous (or infamous) "evolving" dog and pony show he put on with regards to gay marriage. His conversion on that matter has made Paul's on road to Damascus look like a housewife having a bit of a dither at Walmart.