This Is Our Social & Cultural Issues Thread

[PRgal]

The thing with voting by mail:  How would they be able to tell the "right" person voted?  A wife could vote for both herself and her husband, for example, and no one would know. 

As for the whole ID issue in the US:  Without any sort of ID, how would polling people know if the individual voting is that individual?  In Canada, we have to show up with our voter card (a piece of paper telling us where to go to vote) and either an official government ID or a bill with our address on it.  If you, for some reason, did not receive a card, you can be added to the voters' list (which, of course, means you have to have some sort of proof of address).  I have never heard of anyone questioning this here. 

[Katy M]

28 minutes ago, PRgal said:

As for the whole ID issue in the US:  Without any sort of ID, how would polling people know if the individual voting is that individual? 

They don't. That's the whole thing.  Each state works differently, but in my state, you go to the poll, walk up to the poll worker and state your name.  They then check you off their list.  However, the list is sitting right in front of them.  I can see (on whatever page they're on) which names are checked off and which aren't and as long as you can read upside down, it would be no problem to say, I'm Mary Smith.  They would then look down, say, "ah, there you are," check your name, off you vote, the real Mary Smith shows up and is then told she already voted.  This is not completely without risk as the poll workers might actually know Mary Smith.

For some odd reason, people in this country think that having a voter card commits some great injustice.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Katy M

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

The thing with voting by mail:  How would they be able to tell the "right" person voted?  A wife could vote for both herself and her husband, for example, and no one would know. 

 

In Oregon, signatures are required on ballots.  Whether or not they are checked, I really don't know (I do know that the ballots are checked to makes sure they HAVE a signature, but I don't know if it checked against the signature on the voter registration).  However, the signature also makes the ballot a legal document.  If it comes out that someone other than person to whom the ballot is addressed signs the ballot, it is a felony and the Secretary of State's office has been very public that they will prosecute such cases.  Well, the former Secretary of State said that--but she's now the governor, so I think it still stands.

3 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

That is the deal breaker for me.  While the convenience is great, and probably does result in higher "turnout", which we all want, I really, really love seeing my ballot go right into the machine and the number turning over.  Knowing it was counted is the primary thing for me.  I could never trust that my mailed ballot got counted.  Maybe just having a ballot sent, then returning it to a monitored polling place, not just a possibly unsecured box, would be something I could get behind. 

I honestly don't know what the rate of people mailing in ballots vs. the people dropping off ballots is.  Anecdotally, though, I don't know a single person who mails in their ballot.  The state does a very good job of putting many polling boxes out (there is always one at every library and every government building, plus others in high-population places. They frequently have volunteers at the polling boxes in the days leading up to big elections (Presidential, midterms...but not usually for off years when we are voting for judges running unopposed and budget measures) so that there is a witness to us dropping off our ballot and so that certain people don't try to vote in the library book return slot (this happened almost every election until the library changed their book returns).

 

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

The thing with voting by mail:  How would they be able to tell the "right" person voted?  A wife could vote for both herself and her husband, for example, and no one would know. 

In my life, I've voted in three states, including Oregon before vote-by-mail (er, drop off) was instituted and I have never been asked for any sort of ID.  Honestly, the way Oregon and some other states handle elections is far more secure than many other states.  They know who gets a ballot and they have some sort of assurance (no foolproof, but liable for prosecution) that the person on the ballot is the person voting.

ETA: Spouses voting for each other...if one spouse signs the other spouses ballot, it is still a felony.  How often that happens, I don't know.  I certainly haven't heard of any cases of it here.  

The issue with the ID laws is that it is too easy for local officials to manipulate what an acceptable ID is.  A Driver's License?  Not everyone has one.  A DMV ID?  They still cost money (and a trip to the DMV), which makes it difficult for lower income and those with transportation or mobility issues to get that.  If you were issued an ID as part of your voter registration, I would be all for that...but that option isn't on the table.

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

On the other hand, one time my mom went to vote and was told she already voted.  So, she knows for a fact her vote didn't get counted.  Maybe the person who so kindly voted for her voted the exact same way she would have.

In Oregon, if 2 ballots are submitted for the same person (which would be difficult, but not impossible.  I imagine it would be a case of a ballot being stolen and the legitimate person requesting a replacement, or the legitimate voter voting and someone else requesting a replacement), both ballots are pulled.  All ballots are barcoded and then scanned the moment they are delivered to an elections office, so this is very easy to detect.  Then, if I'm remembering correctly, the person on the ballot is contacted about the situation and, once they know what is going on, is allowed to vote again (provided there is time before the ballots are counted) and the case is investigated.

[BoogieBurns]

Quote

The thing with voting by mail:  How would they be able to tell the "right" person voted?  A wife could vote for both herself and her husband, for example, and no one would know.

@PRgal They match the signature on the ballot to the signature on your driver's license. They throw them out if they seem inconsistent at all. It's how they keep dead people from voting. Now, if the wife fills out both ballots and has her husband sign his, well, he voted for whomever she wanted. 

[PRgal]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

 

The issue with the ID laws is that it is too easy for local officials to manipulate what an acceptable ID is.  A Driver's License?  Not everyone has one.  A DMV ID?  They still cost money (and a trip to the DMV), which makes it difficult for lower income and those with transportation or mobility issues to get that.  If you were issued an ID as part of your voter registration, I would be all for that...but that option isn't on the table.

 

Here, you can use a bank statement, phone bill, etc...as proof of address as well.  No need for government ID. 

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Here, you can use a bank statement, phone bill, etc...as proof of address as well.  No need for government ID. 

In the US, the move for voter ID laws is to use a government issued ID card, which would be a passport, Military ID, Driver's License, or DMV Id.  The most common, of course, would be a driver's license or DMV ID.  However, if you don't drive, you wouldn't have a Driver's License and, DMV ID's, depending on the state, can be expensive.  In Oregon, they are $40, although I've seen lower and higher in different states.  That may not seem like much to many people, but for some, that is prohibitively expensive.  And, as IDs go, that's the cheapest option (other than a Military ID--but you have to be in the military, retired from the military, or a dependent to get that).  

So, in essence, a voter ID law in the US (the way it is currently being proposed), would essentially make it so that people would have to pay for the right to vote, which is unconstitutional.  However, if voters were issued a voter ID card when they registered or re-registered (at no charge), that would be a different thing.

As for bank statements and bills, a number of libraries won't even accept those for library cards any more, so I don't think they'd hold up as a voter ID.  Plus, it doesn't indicate if you are legally able to vote.

[SlackerInc]

13 hours ago, Katy M said:

I think if this is happening, you have bigger problems in your marriage and life than voting. 

You sure do.  But at least you're not making your problems the entire country's problems.

11 hours ago, PRgal said:

As for the whole ID issue in the US:  Without any sort of ID, how would polling people know if the individual voting is that individual?  In Canada, we have to show up with our voter card (a piece of paper telling us where to go to vote) and either an official government ID or a bill with our address on it.  If you, for some reason, did not receive a card, you can be added to the voters' list (which, of course, means you have to have some sort of proof of address).  I have never heard of anyone questioning this here. 

This is all very rational and logical and I agree with you.  It does look weird for people to be incensed at requiring ID for voting when it's already required to conduct banking type business, get on a plane, etc.

10 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

I love the ACLU 99 percent of the time (including when they stick up for the constitutional rights of hate groups like neo-Nazis or the KKK), but I'm not with them here.  There is no doubt that voter ID laws are being aimed at reducing minority turnout.  But the response should not be to stubbornly insist that people shouldn't need IDs to vote!  It's to insist on including with ID laws provisions making it easy, and free, for low-income people to get proper ID.

10 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

@PRgal They match the signature on the ballot to the signature on your driver's license. They throw them out if they seem inconsistent at all. It's how they keep dead people from voting. Now, if the wife fills out both ballots and has her husband sign his, well, he voted for whomever she wanted. 

Two problems there.  (1) My signature is not all that consistent, so my vote would be in jeopardy of not being counted on the regular.  (2) I don't think a wife, husband, or roommate should get extra votes in that situation.  If I had a roommate who was apolitical or just really unmotivated to bother with voting, didn't follow the issues, etc., I'd be really tempted to say "okay, if I fill it out for you, will you sign it?"  And that shouldn't be a thing that can happen.  Yet it's much more likely to succeed than saying "Can I drive you to the polls and explain to you in advance who you should remember to vote for for various offices?"

So thanks: you've given me two more reasons to oppose this awful, awful idea.

[theatremouse]

Sorry, when was there mail-voting on the show? I'm confused.

[biakbiak]

6 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

Sorry, when was there mail-voting on the show? I'm confused.

There wasn't. Someone stated the fact that Alpine, NJ where Beth and Randall live doesn't have mail delivery and everyone has to go to the post office and said the mailman scene annoyed them. Another poster chimed in that they were annoyed by a plot point on the WW where rain had suppressed voter turnout in Oregon and it annoyed the poster because they vote by mail in Oregon.

[ChromaKelly]

11 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I love the ACLU 99 percent of the time (including when they stick up for the constitutional rights of hate groups like neo-Nazis or the KKK), but I'm not with them here.  There is no doubt that voter ID laws are being aimed at reducing minority turnout.  But the response should not be to stubbornly insist that people shouldn't need IDs to vote!  It's to insist on including with ID laws provisions making it easy, and free, for low-income people to get proper ID.

 

You make a very good point. Other countries have some sort of nationally issued ID, right? I hadn't thought about it like that but I agree. They are going after the wrong end of this. I can never argue well about why voter ID laws are restrictive and discriminatory. The point is, we should have free/low-cost access to obtaining a valid photo ID. Why can't this be done at post offices? There is usually a post office in every neighborhood, whereas DMV's are not quite as ubiquitous. 
OK, now we're way OT on a social issue that's not even from the show.

[PRgal]

18 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

  Plus, it doesn't indicate if you are legally able to vote.

A driver's licence doesn't (usually) show one's citizenship, does it?  All it can indicate is one is (or isn't) over 18.

[BoogieBurns]

1 minute ago, PRgal said:

A driver's licence doesn't (usually) show one's citizenship, does it?  All it can indicate is one is (or isn't) over 18.

Nor does it show if you are a felon. 

7 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

OK, now we're way OT on a social issue that's not even from the show.

This is like the stream of consciousness thread sometimes, huh? 

[Court]

I'm in Georgia. We show an ID to vote. They check to make sure you registered and you vote. The license isn't what would show felony (felons can vote in some states), citizen. etc. The ID confirms you're registered. That other stuff is checked when you register to vote.

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, Court said:

I'm in Georgia. We show an ID to vote. They check to make sure you registered and you vote.

In Texas, the DMV lines takes as much as 4 hours to renew a driver's license and are only open during business hours. Thus, making it very difficult for people to renew IDs if they have a job that doesn't have a flexible schedule, and/or transportation. Slippery slope. I am going to stop here. But that's why they accept other forms of ID (electric bills, etc) in some places. 

I wonder if Randall's family history of cancer will be explored in future seasons. I don't want him to get it or anything, but I would love him to get some blood tests and take preventative measures. Is that what William's mom, Mama Hill also died from? I forget.

[OtterMommy]

54 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

I wonder if Randall's family history of cancer will be explored in future seasons. I don't want him to get it or anything, but I would love him to get some blood tests and take preventative measures. Is that what William's mom, Mama Hill also died from? I forget.

Yes, she died from cancer, but we don't know what type.  Someone with more medical knowledge can chime in here, but I don't think stomach cancer (what William had) has any genetic link.  

Still, that being said, I think it might be an interesting path for the show to take to show, or at least explore, the possibility that Randall's health may be tied to his biological family.  If anything, it would bring up the question of nature vs. nurture in a more concrete way (although the NvN debate does always seem to spiral out of control).

[Tiger]

On 3/10/2017 at 0:28 PM, OtterMommy said:

Yes, she died from cancer, but we don't know what type.  Someone with more medical knowledge can chime in here, but I don't think stomach cancer (what William had) has any genetic link.  

Still, that being said, I think it might be an interesting path for the show to take to show, or at least explore, the possibility that Randall's health may be tied to his biological family.  If anything, it would bring up the question of nature vs. nurture in a more concrete way (although the NvN debate does always seem to spiral out of control).

As Beth's father died of cancer too, I wouldnt be surprised if one of Beth & Randall's daughters developed some sort of cancer.  

I dont mean to sound synical, but you know NBC would love promoting a kiddie cancer story.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Tiger
verb tense is important

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, Tiger said:

As Beth's father died of cancer too, I wouldnt be surprised if one of Beth & Randall's daughters developed some sort of cancer.  

I dont mean to sound synical, but you know NBC would love promoting a kiddie cancer story.

It's only acceptable if the child is clear of it in two episodes or less and they show them all in the same night. I am already hurting inside thinking of this plot line. May be one step too far.

[SlackerInc]

Yeah, I am honestly not so sure NBC would love to promote a kiddie cancer story.  Not because I think that's too cynical or NBC is too decent, but because I'm not convinced that's really a moneymaker, or at least that NBC wouldn't view it as risky.  If they were in fact convinced that it would help their bottom line, then absolutely: they would not hesitate.

And maybe I'm just out of the loop, but have other shows shown kids with cancer?  If this were seen as a safe way to juice ratings, I feel like I would have heard of other shows doing it as a storyline.

ETA: I mean shows that are not medical dramas, and where the kid character was well-established on the show before they got cancer.

Edited March 12, 2017 by SlackerInc

[OtterMommy]

7 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

Yeah, I am honestly not so sure NBC would love to promote a kiddie cancer story.  Not because I think that's too cynical or NBC is too decent, but because I'm not convinced that's really a moneymaker, or at least that NBC wouldn't view it as risky.  If they were in fact convinced that it would help their bottom line, then absolutely: they would not hesitate.

And maybe I'm just out of the loop, but have other shows shown kids with cancer?  If this were seen as a safe way to juice ratings, I feel like I would have heard of other shows doing it as a storyline.

ETA: I mean shows that are not medical dramas, and where the kid character was well-established on the show before they got cancer.

I can't think of any shows that did this, much less any where the child actually died.

I have to be honest, that may make me turn off the show.  Not that I think it is an offensive idea, but I just do not want to watch a kid suffer and possibly die.  

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

 I mean shows that are not medical dramas, and where the kid character was well-established on the show before they got cancer.

If anything, Red Band Society showed that kids with diseases are not moneymakers.

[possibilities]

Yeah, but RBS also showed that kids sick enough to be inpatients at a hospital aren't very sick, either, most of the time. I watched it compulsively but it was a horrible show and I was grateful when they cancelled it.

TIU is a sobfest already. If they mess with Tess or Annie, I don't think I can take it. They already killed a triplet and didn't really dwell on it. They might do something with the child of a peripheral character, maybe. Like maybe Kevin goes to a cancer ward to cheer the kids up and take photos, or the child of someone's co-worker or neighbor or maybe a classmate of one of the main ensemble -- then they can give us glimpses and yank at our heartstrings but still have a buffer and not make the entire show about it. They do like to make us cry. But I think they already have more than enough stories going on and I'm not advocating for any of this to happen.

[jhlipton]

9 hours ago, possibilities said:

They might do something with the child of a peripheral character, maybe. Like maybe Kevin goes to a cancer ward to cheer the kids up and take photos, or the child of someone's co-worker or neighbor or maybe a classmate of one of the main ensemble -- then they can give us glimpses and yank at our heartstrings but still have a buffer and not make the entire show about it. They do like to make us cry. But I think they already have more than enough stories going on and I'm not advocating for any of this to happen.

All-in-all, I'd just as soon they stay out of hospitals altogether.  There's plenty of other drama in other milieus.

[methodwriter85]

I could, however, see the show being willing to kill off Beth with cancer. Thirtysomething was going to do it with Nancy, but changed their mind because cancer sufferers wrote about how they were inspired and wanted to have hope. But since the show had always intended on killing off a principal character while they were still 30-something, they offed Gary instead.

Edited March 13, 2017 by methodwriter85

[possibilities]

2 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I could, however, see the show being willing to kill off Beth with cancer.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I love Beth.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't kill her or even make her sick.

No No No No No No No

[jhlipton]

19 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I could, however, see the show being willing to kill off Beth with cancer.

If they do, I'm out.  Far too few good black female role models as it is.

[OtterMommy]

35 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

If they do, I'm out.  Far too few good black female role models as it is.

Honestly, I think they've hit their quota of characters dying of cancer.  I know it is common, but this isn't a medical drama and I can only take so much.  I'd probably be out, no matter who the character is.

That being said, I could see them having a character battle cancer, although I'd rather not see that either.  We already have Kate battling obesity and Randall battling anxiety (I guess you could add Jack battling alcoholism).  That's a lot of illness battling for a show that just killed off a character who had--yup--been battling cancer.

[memememe76]

A child with cancer storyline occurred on Sisters. Georgie's younger son. He survived it but it was a season long arc. It was pretty good. 

With Randall and Beth perhaps adopting, maybe the child can have a disease or disability?

If they want to explore the issues around the death of a child, there are flashbacks for Kevin and Sophie. We don't know their history. I do find it interesting that Sophie is married twice but there does not appear to be any kids. 

[PRgal]

8 hours ago, memememe76 said:

A child with cancer storyline occurred on Sisters. Georgie's younger son. He survived it but it was a season long arc. It was pretty good. 

With Randall and Beth perhaps adopting, maybe the child can have a disease or disability?

If they want to explore the issues around the death of a child, there are flashbacks for Kevin and Sophie. We don't know their history. I do find it interesting that Sophie is married twice but there does not appear to be any kids. 

I would love to see a season-long arc which realistically portrays adoption (and all that comes with it).  I don't think we see this too often on TV.  We started the process in 2013 and two homestudies later (because it needs to be renewed), we are still waiting.  Plus how easy would it be for the Pearsons to be approved for adoption, considering Randall's condition? 

[Katy M]

18 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I would love to see a season-long arc which realistically portrays adoption (and all that comes with it).  I don't think we see this too often on TV.  We started the process in 2013 and two homestudies later (because it needs to be renewed), we are still waiting.  Plus how easy would it be for the Pearsons to be approved for adoption, considering Randall's condition? 

They could fix the misconception they may have made when they basically stated that a couple could just declare they wanted a dropped off baby and leave the hospital with that baby the same day, no muss, no fuss.  A financially struggling couple, no less.

[Crs97]

Please do not let them adopt a baby with special needs!  I have absolutely no faith that the showrumners could avoid the temptation of inspiration porn!

[Court]

Adopting through foster care is not that expensive. It becomes really expensive when done overseas or through private agencies.

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Court said:

Adopting through foster care is not that expensive. It becomes really expensive when done overseas or through private agencies.

International adoption can also be an issue due to Randall's anxiety.  Mental illness is even more stigmatized in some cultures. 

[tennisgurl]

I mentioned this in the episode thread, but I wonder if Randall will adopt a baby of another race or nationality, and will struggle with a cross cultural/racial adoption like his parents struggled with being white parents to a black child, and showing him that they considered him their kid, while also connecting him with his biological hertitage? It could be interesting playing that from Randall's perspective as an adult and a parent, and in the modern era.

[BoogieBurns]

I hope Randall adopts a black child (if they adopt at all). It seems a bit... much... to make him diversify the show even more. Let Kate adopt the Vietnamese baby and Kevin can adopt from Guatemala. But with so many black babies needing homes, and him knowing what it's like to be black with no black role models in his life--I just don't think transracial adoption is the right move for Randall's gang of Pearsons. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

International adoption can also be an issue due to Randall's anxiety.  Mental illness is even more stigmatized in some cultures. 

I'm not sure I'd tag him mentally ill yet.  It's pretty common for successful type A people to deal with generalized anxiety and/or having to take some time off from biting off more than they can chew.  The 2-day hospitalization isn't common but one event under unique circumstances probably wouldn't close a lot of doors to him in life, I wouldn't think. 

[Wings]

It really doesn't matter how difficult adoption is in RL, Randall will adopt the kid that fits the story line best.  If RL details were shown in movies and TV we would never watch any of it.  Way too boring.  Look how Randall got into the family!  Like that could happen.  ***eye roll***

That is fine with me.  This show moves slowly enough as it is. 

[jhlipton]

6 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

I hope Randall adopts a black child (if they adopt at all). It seems a bit... much... to make him diversify the show even more.

I agree.  And Randall and Beth are proud of who they are -- they don't need to adopt a non-black child to prove a point.

That said, I think Beth is going to realize that this is not something that Randall has really thought about -- it's coming from a moment of sorrow and nostalgia, not good reasons to want to adopt.

[ChromaKelly]

Rebecca's SAHM blues: It's not easy to reenter the workforce after being a SAHM and while the kids are still in school. I'm kind of getting annoyed at all the comments that she should have a job or be contributing and singing in bars is not a valid way to fulfill oneself. I work part time and am right now having a dilemma about the summer. Sometimes it almost doesn't pay to work. I can rarely take off to chaperone field trips, and feel guilty for staying home on snow days. So, WTF ever that poor Jack had to cope for two fucking weeks while Rebecca was gone.

Also, how she should have handled the attempted kiss from Ben: I don't think she had to go run out of the bar in order to prove that she valued her marriage. I also don't think she had to go on with the show because women are obliged to put up with sexual harassment. I read the scene that she was going to go on with the gig, but realized she would rather be home after the pass was made, and was probably going to talk to the band after the show. 

Randall adopting: Eh, I'm kind of dreading it if that's where they are going. He's making this decision while going through an emotional crisis. I don't need another sappy adoption plot and I hope if they do it, it's not all rainbows and unicorns.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

Also, how she should have handled the attempted kiss from Ben: I don't think she had to go run out of the bar in order to prove that she valued her marriage. I also don't think she had to go on with the show because women are obliged to put up with sexual harassment. I read the scene that she was going to go on with the gig, but realized she would rather be home after the pass was made, and was probably going to talk to the band after the show. 

Same here.  I think she also could've put Jack in a cab and sent him to wait for her at her hotel, or called Miguel to get him, and gone on with the show.  I understand her feeling like 'fuck it' and just going home, though.  I like that she was disgusted with him getting drunk the one week she needed him to be sober and supportive.  

[Indy]

On 3/15/2017 at 9:57 AM, PRgal said:

I would love to see a season-long arc which realistically portrays adoption (and all that comes with it).  I don't think we see this too often on TV.  We started the process in 2013 and two homestudies later (because it needs to be renewed), we are still waiting.  Plus how easy would it be for the Pearsons to be approved for adoption, considering Randall's condition? 

ITA. After going through the adoption process, I'd love to see it realistically portrayed. It's so emotionally grueling and isn't often portrayed that way. I would like to see this be a full season process for them, not an instababy showing up in episode three (and lots of hugs to you in your wait, I know how much it sucks to wait and have to renew everything over and over...start to finish we were at almost 3 years and ~30 rejections before being placed with our son)

As far as Randall's condition affecting his ability to adopt, I don't think it would be too much of a problem domestically, especially taking into account their financial means to go through a private agency and their assumed willingness to adopt a non-white male child (which would potentially match them faster too).  My husband takes medicine for anxiety (though he had not been hospitalized) and immediately prior to our homestudies had some life-threatening health issues and neither were a problem for our adoption. But that's domestic, foreign is different. China has particularly tough regulations when then it comes to health of potential adoptive parents (even BMI is a factor), I'm pretty sure neither me or my DH would have met their approval. If he takes or has recently taken any medication for anything like anxiety or depression, he could be ruled ineligible to adopt from many foreign countries, even if he isn't want we'd necessarily call "mentally ill" here in this country. 

[jhlipton]

7 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I agree.  Benefits not at all adequate.  I have Vietnam veterans in my family circle who were screwed in multiple ways, and exposed to Agent Orange in the bargain. 

From Wikipedia:
 

Quote

In 1991, Congress enacted the Agent Orange Act, giving the Department of Veterans Affairs the authority to declare certain conditions 'presumptive' to exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin, making these veterans who served in Vietnam eligible to receive treatment and compensation for these conditions.  In June 2015 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued an Interim final rule providing presumptive service connection for post-Vietnam C-123 aircrews, maintenance staff and aeromedical evacuation crews. VA now provides medical care and disability compensation for the recognized list of Agent Orange illnesses.

As a "non-vet", but someone who was up for the draft, the foot-dragging on Agent Orange compensation for vets made me sick.  These men had been put through a meat-grinder, largely for Shell Oil, and exposed to toxic chemicals, but, nah, they're just moochers. 

[Crs97]

I can remember the late John Ritter making a movie about Agent Orange and hitting every talk show to tell the world how bad it was and how much the government had screwed over its Vietnam vets.  Just heart-breaking.

[jhlipton]

3 hours ago, Crs97 said:

I can remember the late John Ritter making a movie about Agent Orange and hitting every talk show to tell the world how bad it was and how much the government had screwed over its Vietnam vets.  Just heart-breaking.

'Nam was just a mess all the way around -- napalm for the natives and dioxin for the troops.  And don't get started on Ky and Diem.  And Uncle Ho was far from a saint too.
I remember when Jane the Dumbass Fonda went to Hanoi (and posed on top of a tank -- way to go for anti-war, Jane!).  Joan Baez and the rest of us hippies were furious.

[SlackerInc]

I think it was an antiaircraft gun, wasn't it?

On 3/15/2017 at 4:21 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I'm not sure I'd tag him mentally ill yet.  It's pretty common for successful type A people to deal with generalized anxiety and/or having to take some time off from biting off more than they can chew.  The 2-day hospitalization isn't common but one event under unique circumstances probably wouldn't close a lot of doors to him in life, I wouldn't think. 

I would flip that around and say we shouldn't have such a stigma around "mentally ill".  To my way of thinking, those who regularly have issues with anxiety or depression are mentally ill.  It's just really common to be mentally ill, just like it's common to have physical ailments, from acid reflux to chronic back pain to heart disease.

[tiramisue]

11 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I would flip that around and say we shouldn't have such a stigma around "mentally ill".  To my way of thinking, those who regularly have issues with anxiety or depression are mentally ill.  It's just really common to be mentally ill, just like it's common to have physical ailments, from acid reflux to chronic back pain to heart disease.

Absolutely! The WHO estimates that 65% to 85% of all people are mentally ill at some point during their lifes. It just happens.
If someone has the flu we are not afraid to say they are ill. To take meds, to see a doctor if necessary. It's okay.
Being mentally ill should be the same. It's okay to get mentally ill. It's okay to get treatment (lots of people especially men don't seek out treatment for mental illnesses) and it's possible to fight most mental illnesses and if not at least reduce the symptoms. Therapy, meds and support from friends and family can help with the fight, but stigmatizing (and self-stigmatizing) and fearing the word and ignoring it, just makes it worse in the long run.

Yeah, the show sort of averted it since they did treat Randall's anxiety, but I doubt he'd want to hear anything about mental illnesses.

Sorry for being so preachy. I'm currently writing my thesis on self-stigma. ;)

Edited March 17, 2017 by tiramisue

[dcubed]

On 3/15/2017 at 4:21 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I'm not sure I'd tag him mentally ill yet.  It's pretty common for successful type A people to deal with generalized anxiety and/or having to take some time off from biting off more than they can chew.  The 2-day hospitalization isn't common but one event under unique circumstances probably wouldn't close a lot of doors to him in life, I wouldn't think. 

Not to split hairs here (and yes, I know I am) but anxiety disorders are considered a mental illness.  As someone who has seen it up close at varying degrees of debilitation, I think we should call it what it is if for no other reason, to de-stigmatize what mental illness is and help people realize what percentage of the population suffers from some type of MI, even if it is not severe.  Mental illness is much more than "big issues" like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, it can be smaller and less severe though I would say Randall's MI is fairly severe in that when he has his breakdowns, it's lead to temporary blindness and hospitalizations.  From a story line standpoint, I think they've done this part a great disservice.  He was in the hospital for two days and now he's A-OK!  Two weeks with a therapist and medication adjustments is not long enough to be back to normal.  And then to lose your Dad and not delve into that effect on Randall's emotional state is unrealistic at best.  Heck, most SSRI's and other meds take at least four weeks to get into your system to work.  That being said, I would agree that what's happened to Randall won't close a lot of doors in life. 

[PRgal]

19 hours ago, Indy said:

ITA. After going through the adoption process, I'd love to see it realistically portrayed. It's so emotionally grueling and isn't often portrayed that way. I would like to see this be a full season process for them, not an instababy showing up in episode three (and lots of hugs to you in your wait, I know how much it sucks to wait and have to renew everything over and over...start to finish we were at almost 3 years and ~30 rejections before being placed with our son)

As far as Randall's condition affecting his ability to adopt, I don't think it would be too much of a problem domestically, especially taking into account their financial means to go through a private agency and their assumed willingness to adopt a non-white male child (which would potentially match them faster too).  My husband takes medicine for anxiety (though he had not been hospitalized) and immediately prior to our homestudies had some life-threatening health issues and neither were a problem for our adoption. But that's domestic, foreign is different. China has particularly tough regulations when then it comes to health of potential adoptive parents (even BMI is a factor), I'm pretty sure neither me or my DH would have met their approval. If he takes or has recently taken any medication for anything like anxiety or depression, he could be ruled ineligible to adopt from many foreign countries, even if he isn't want we'd necessarily call "mentally ill" here in this country. 

Mental illness/anxiety is definitely not as big of an issue domestically (ditto with neurological issues.  In fact, my epilepsy wasn't deemed a problem AT ALL here (Canada (nor would it be a problem for the US)).  However, that was a no-go for practically EVERY Asian country.  Our main "issue" for NOT being matched (our guess, anyway) is because we are an Asian/white couple, which (probably) scares some birth parents off (because, you know, #tigermomstereotype)).  Any adoption process they portray should drag on for the entire season, perhaps even into season 3.  However, I doubt that's going to happen if they choose to go towards THAT direction. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I think it was an antiaircraft gun, wasn't it?

I would flip that around and say we shouldn't have such a stigma around "mentally ill".  To my way of thinking, those who regularly have issues with anxiety or depression are mentally ill.  It's just really common to be mentally ill, just like it's common to have physical ailments, from acid reflux to chronic back pain to heart disease.

Ok but you wouldn't label someone with acid reflux "physically ill" in context of wondering if they could adopt.  But I agree GAD is about as rare and debilitating as GERD. 

[ShadowFacts]

As to stigmatizing mental illness, whatever gradation, I think there's a long way to go in reversing that.  Currently insurance companies have to cover mental health services because they are defined as essential health benefits.  That's all in jeopardy now.  And removing the mandate will not do much for the opioid epidemic, in addition to moving backwards with mental health parity. 

12 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Any adoption process they portray should drag on for the entire season, perhaps even into season 3.  However, I doubt that's going to happen if they choose to go towards THAT direction. 

Yes, they could skip any and all obstacles by performing a time jump, which could also show us that Kate is auditioning for a televised voice competition, and Kevin has finished filming the Ron Howard movie. 

[jhlipton]

7 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I think it was an antiaircraft gun, wasn't it?

I think you're right.  Regardless, it was a weapon used to kill Americans -- and peace-nik, free-loving "commie pinkos" I knew were against killing on both sides.