Someday We'll All Demand Single Payer Health Care

Senator Rockefeller said it best yesterday; if you want single payer public health care, vote to defeat the current health reform. The status quo health care system will continue to bankrupt people, and provide less care at ever higher prices. The current system will eventually implode. At some point in the future we’ll be demanding a single payer government plan to reduce costs and bail out a failed private system.

I hope he’s right. What is so special about the health care system that we have to maintain the status quo? I’ve heard that 1/6th of our economy is wrapped up the health care industry. But who actually would be impacted by a single payer system? Not the hospitals. Not the doctors. Not the medical equipment suppliers. Not the instrument and equipment suppliers. Not the pharmaceutical industry. They all stay happily employed regardless of who pays them. It’s who pays them that will go away. The insurance companies take our money in and pay it out, and keep some for themselves, with no added value in the process. About 30% of every dollar you pay for insurance goes in their pockets. They also maintain near monopolies in most states- unregulated and keeping prices high.

I’ve been enthralled by Ken Burns “National Parks” documentary on PBS. The central theme in the struggle to establish the National Parks is simple; to be preserved for all people to enjoy today and in the future- public land, for the people, all the people. The health reform debate parallels the struggle our National Parks endured.

Opponents of the parks argued that people should be free to build communities, mine, cut timber, build dams, graze cattle, and grow crops – all good uses for profit instead. If it had value, it was the American way to exploit it, tame it, and bring it to it’s knees until it was consumed, raped bare, or just too butt ugly to have any residual use. Congress, on the argument that it had no commercial value, gave Yosemite to the state of California. If gold had been discovered in Yosemite, it never would’ve happened.

In 1900, the entire White Mountain National Forest land was a wasteland of slash timber, deforested and abandoned. After it was ruined, the Government stepped in. Here are a few photos of the White Mountain forest after the rape, before the government saved it:

In a way, health reform is running the same course. We can’t make it a public program as long as it can be dollarized. We’ll continue along the same American way- exploit the enterprise until it’s been milked dry. When it is- when people can’t afford insurance anymore, and our medical infrastructure completely fails us, then people will demand that the government step in and save it. I hope Senator Rockefeller is right. I hope we can limp along until that day comes.

Last Ditch Attempt to Kill All Health Reforms

Republicans in several states are pushing for state constitutional amendments that would prevent mandating all citizens purchase insurance. (You can read about here: NY Times Article ) I feel the long arm of the health cartel putting the squeeze on, one last time. This is nothing more than a back door attempt to kill the health reforms and keep the status quo. They’re hiding their real intentions behind a lofty ideal of defending people’s right to choose, in this case, to not be insured – that might include people who are very healthy, young, above the income level to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to buy insurance- and Bill Gates. So why are they really doing it?

The private companies need full participation in order to expand the risk pool. This makes it possible for them to take on all comers, and still be profitable. The mandates are created only for the benefit of the private insurance companies. Mandated coverage is a Government hand out to the insurance companies. Think about it- we’re passing a law, whereby you have to purchase private insurance. I don’t like the sound of that myself, but having a large risk pool is key to the only two reforms still alive in the bill: being denied and being kick out.

If states are able to nix mandated insurance, then the private insurance companies can claim foul, and refuse to insure people, and kick people off their policies. Their deal with Congress is contingent on universal participation. If the states succeed in undoing the mandated coverage, all the health care reforms will be lost. It’ll be the status quo, and health cartel will have won. The Republicans will have successfully killed all the reforms.

It just goes to prove that a 100 corporations have more control over our democracy, than 300 million people. Single payer health care would be the only true reform of our health care system. We should have Medicare for all. What’s coming out of health reform is a joke, and the joke's on us... the people.

Is Iran Testing Missiles or Obama?

What happened? Nine months ago the President said an open hand would be met in kind. Iran acknowledged his overture by saying if the President acts by deeds, not words, that new relations can happen. But what does Ahmadinejad do? Just the opposite of what he challenged the President to do! Iran is acting incredulously, poking at one sore spot after another, and even rousing concern from Russia and China, their strongest trading partners. Here's the latest: NPR Article , CNN Article and NY Times Article

And now President Obama is forced to take a stern, even hawkish stand against a country he dangled an olive branch to just months ago. This is an embarrassment for the President. Iran is testing him. All presidents seem to face the international policy exam. What’s the right answer to this quiz? Do we negotiate or rattle sabers?

If the President is too hawkish, then Iran will claim he is not serious about new relations, and continue to act with impunity-- and stupidity. If the President is too conciliatory, then Iran will take it as a sign of weakness, and continue to act with impunity. I don’t think he can pass this test. He’ll fail regardless of what he does.

Why are we the only country that has to take this test? The best thing he can do is back away from leading this malaise, and let Germany, France, UK and Russia deal with it. Help by leading for a change. We know that won’t happen. That’s not an acceptable answer to international policy exams.

Dragging the UK and France on stage with him to condemn Iran’s latest transgression was a step in the right direction. Now, if he could just handover leadership and say, “Here, you take this one”, there might be a way out for us. Unfortunately, we insist on keeping our chin a little more exposed than everyone else, to be the bulls-eye, the missile magnet, and the effigy the world loves to burn.

Is Afghanistan the Good War?

Scott Simon gave a moving commentary on NPR about the Taliban: Scott Simon Commentary

The jist of the article described the brutality of the Taliban; their total disregard for woman’s rights, people’s rights in general, and their intolerance to any behavior that violated their interpretation of Islamic Law. It was a depressing, gruesome tale- all true, and quite opposite to our basic beliefs of how people should be treated. He reminded us that the Taliban are a cruel and vicious people; that life under their rule was unthinkably oppressive, and while they are not Al Qaeda, our efforts to fight them has merit- that it may be a crime to let them regain control, and implying that fighting to establish a better place for the people may be an honorable endeavor.

He’s suggesting if it was necessary to go there in the first place, then we have a moral obligation to complete our mission- and not leave after eight years with the same horrid conditions that existed before we invaded. He’s asking if the Taliban are evil, is this a good war, a war of necessity? Can we leave before the job is done, regardless of how long it takes?

Do we ever go to war when only the life of humanity is in the balance? Unfortunately, we don’t. We pick our battles for other reasons.  If it involves: revenge to those who trespassed against us, controlling who gets oil, defending Israel, or upholding our alliances with Europe, then we’ll do just about anything.  Even overthrowing the Taliban was just a means to an end- getting at Al Qaeda. But, if it’s only inhumanity to man that’s at stake, we have a very poor record.

I can point out the killing fields of Cambodia, Chad, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, Burma, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and Indonesia- to name a few, where we had no financial or political skin in the game, and we chose to ignore the plight of the people. It continues today. If our foreign policy is to make the world a better place for humanity- we’ve failed miserably.

Our record of selective moral righteousness makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world. We’re not morally righteous, and he’s correct to suggest that we should be, but we have yet to walk the walk for that reason alone, and no other. If Afghanistan is the good war, are we prepared to stay for as long as it takes to ensure humanity? I don't think we have the resolve to do that- that's not why we went there, and that's not why we would stay.

Old Man Winter Never Dies

We had a killing frost last night.  It seems to be coming a little later than I remember in my youth. I suppose it’s the climate change thing. Soon we’ll be skiing, shoveling off the roof, and plowing snow. Last year we had so much snow the plow guy had no place to push it.

Get ready. It’s coming...  Rather than show great photos of skiing (that will come), I thought I'd remind us of the cold hard reality.  Here’s a preview:

Forget Iran, What If Hitler had the Bomb?

This is an unthinkable thought, but let's suppose Hitler got the atomic bomb before we did and dropped it on England- three times. After that, he announced that he had submarines off the coast of America, and was prepared to launch short-range rockets with nuclear warheads on our major cities unless we surrendered unconditionally. Let’s say we did. Hitler would've moved troops into America, and occupied all the major cities in the country- much the way we did in Germany after the war. What happened next? The human race would likely be cleansed of all undesirables- possibly 20-30 million or more people would be eliminated.

(I'd like to think we pressed on, even with the devastation of England- we had Germany on the run.  Contining to fight in the shadow of atomic war would've been horrific. If we did continue the fight, would we have dropped the bomb on Germany to win the war? Probably.)

On the other fronts, both the Soviet Union and Japan would lay down their arms- The Soviets would surrender because they want to avoid the bomb. The Japanese, quite afraid of tangling with Germany also, would cease all fighting. They would negotiate a settlement with Germany that gives them control of the Pacific Rim and the Pacific Ocean. They would get no part of America, except Hawaii and the islands in the Pacific.

Do you think this could’ve been the worst scenario for humankind? I do. It makes me realize how indebted we are to the “greatest generation”. If a war ever had to be won, unequivocally, this one did. The fate of humankind stood in the balance.

Are there other outcomes looming in the future that could have that impact on the world? Only the cold war came close.  We still have atomic bombs  aimed at each other with mutually assured distruction- MAD. By comparison, is Iran or Al Qaeda really that significant?

Why I Voted For Presidents

In my life, I’ve voted for Nixon, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. I started out as a Republican and I’m not sure why. When I was very young, I had an “I Like Ike” button. I remember the Nixon-Kennedy race being very close. Kennedy was much more likable than Nixon. Kennedy's "Ask not..." inaugural speech hooked me, but I was still a Republican. They were both centrists, and the cold war was raging.

1964- I liked Barry Goldwater. I was a fan of Brave New World, 1984 and The Animal Farm. I think my youthful core values of independence, self-reliance, and unfettered liberty, won out over compassion for my fellow man, civil rights, and the greater good of society.

1968- I voted for Nixon- that was my first time voting. Hubert Humphrey lost on the war. Nixon said he’d get us out of Vietnam. He lied. He gave us the current health care system. Thanks Dick. Robert Kennedy would’ve gotten my vote. Hubert was a Roosevelt Democrat- very liberal. Now, I wish he had won.

1972- My turning point was George Mc Govern. I was sure Nixon was a crook. His popularity was meteoric. He took 49 states in his re-election in 72. That was after the Watergate break-in, and all the buzz around it. I always felt good about voting for McGovern. I was in a very small minority. Republicans smeared McGovern’s VP candidate, Senator Eagleton, for being treated for depression years before. This was the first of many Republican smears. McGovern was also a Roosevelt Democrat. If we had Humphrey and McGovern as Presidents, we might have gotten out of Vietnam sooner. We might have single payer health care today too.

1976- I loved Carter. I voted for him twice. He seemed like a modern day Stonewall Jackson- a man of the people. He is a good man, but he didn’t have a clue about how Washington operates. They chewed him up and spit him out. He was likable, but he couldn’t talk. He was the first President to push energy conservation. When we had the Arab oil embargo in 73, he lowered the speed limit to 50 mph nationwide! Truckers protested, so he increased it to 55. It stayed there for a long time. He will go down in history as the only President to address the nation on TV dressed like Mr. Rogers. He was the first President to promote a green environment. He negotiated a lasting peace tready between Israel and Egypt. History will show him to be a better president than he gets credit for.

1984- Reagan couldn’t have had an easier opponent than Fritz Mondale. I voted for Ferraro. The idea of a woman becoming vice-president was exciting. Someday we might even elect a woman president. Reagan was the great communicator. He could talk the talk better than any of them, and he was very likable- the most popular President we ever had. He initiated massive deregulation- getting “big government off the backs of the people”. In 1987, the stock market crashed- caused by the Savings and Loan failures; because of deregulation, sound familiar? He was also a union buster. Amazingly, the people he hurt liked him all the same.

1988- The Bush Sr.-Dukakis election was a no-brainer. Bush won 40 states on the coat tails of Reagan’s goodwill. I voted against Bush. Neither could talk. Dukakis was an inspiring person, but he couldn’t connect with the people- too intellectual. The Republicans smeared him with the Willie Horton parole scandal. He gave a poor response to a question about Willie in a debate- it sealed his fate.

1992- Clinton got my vote twice- another nice guy who can talk. He will never be considered a great president, but he was popular. Being impeached will always taint his presidency. It was a quiet time- no war and the dot-com business boomed. He was a business friendly centrist- he gave us NAFTA. He failed to get health reform. He did give us new national parks.

2000- Gore lost on Clinton’s coat tails- even though he tried to shake them off. He was a genuinely nice guy, but he was boring. I voted for ideology this time. Bush was a nice guy too, but he couldn’t talk at all. He gave NASCAR fans and Wall St hope that anybody can become president, even if you can’t talk, as long as you've been saved, you're rich, and your dad was a president. George kept the deregulation coming, and started two wars he didn't know how to finish.

2004- I voted for ideology again. Kerry was not a particularly likable guy (strike one), and he couldn’t connect with the people (strike two). He suffered from being labeled a blue blood (strike three). George is a blue blood too. But unlike George, he didn’t have a dad who was a president. George convinced the soccer moms that Republicans would keep them safer than Democrats. The Republican “swift boat” smear hurt Kerry. Bush tried to kill Social Security, so people could invest in Wall St, and make a lot of money. That was a close one...You know the rest...

2008- Obama is inspirational. He’s the first candidate I ever volunteered for. I like what he stands for. He can talk, and he’s a nice guy too, but he's in for a rough ride. We still have the same two wars. The economy is in the tank, it's only been nine months, the honeymoon, if there ever was one, is over.

Our Foreign Policy- Six Year Olds Playing Soccer

When my children were learning to play soccer it was fun to watch them. They were nervous and excited when the ball came near them. I was a coach. We taught them the importance of a strategy and the importance of playing their position. They learned to control the ball, kick, pass, score and defend. However, at first, they weren’t very good with strategy or playing position. Most of the kids would follow the ball around the field like a flock of sheep being chased by a dog. It was funny to watch them. As they grew, and became more skilled, they learned the value of playing position, and executing a strategy to move the ball and score. It was gratifying to see them enjoy the game and develop their skills.

Our foreign policy has been slower to mature, and it’s not very gratifying yet. For eight years we’ve been fighting wars- running around the world, chasing the terrorists like six-year-old soccer players. First, we invaded Afghanistan… Then, we drifted away from Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq... Mission accomplished… not quite… Back to Afghanistan… wait, the real threat is in Pakistan… Time out. That’s where we are today.

Back in March, Vice President Biden proposed backing off in Afghanistan and focusing on Pakistan. He said, that’s where Al Qaeda is, go there. President Obama rejected his suggestion, and decided to increase troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban have proven to be much more formidable than expected- surprise, surprise. The military says they’ll need another 40,000 troops, and no guarantee of success. That’s new information. So now the President is reconsidering the strategy. In fairness to the President, he has stated all along that defeating Al Qaeda is his core goal. He is coming to the realization that the Taliban are not Al Qaeda, and defeating Taliban does little to rid the world of that threat.

Better late than never, the President is returning his focus to the core threat- Al Qaeda. However, he has a problem- Pakistan will not allow U.S. troops on their soil. So what happens next? Will the troops stand on the border to block their migration back to Afghanistan while the CIA drops bombs from Predator drones? If Pakistan remains a safe haven for Al Qaeda, does he risk invading Pakistan? That’s the conundrum the President has to sort out, and why a shift in strategy is so dicey.

A less likely strategy is the idea of leaving all together, and shoring up our homeland security against future terrorist attacks. Someday, I think that’s how it will end.

More Troops? That Dog Don’t Hunt!

The President has managed to wedge himself between the proverbial rock and hard place. We can’t leave Afghanistan and we can’t win if we stay. Furthermore, if he sends in additional troops his own party will hate him, and if he doesn’t, the Republicans will hate him evermore- if that’s possible. President Obama is questioning his earlier decision to elevate the war, and said before he commits more troops, we need a clear strategy. Of course, this implies that he increased troop levels since taking office without a clear strategy- providing even more fodder for his opponents to harp on. The military leaders have all but said we may never win this war by the classical definition. I take that to mean- surrender.

So we’ll stabilize the country instead. It’s like admiting we can’t change straw into gold, so we'll try for jello. How do we presume to know we can even accomplish that? It’s my understanding the Taliban are indigenous to a massive part of Afghanistan. We’ll be fighting their children and their grandchildren- just as the British did, for oh so many years. If stabilize means we never win, and never leave, then count me out. As a friend of mine used to say, “That dog don’t hunt!”

It’s never too late to admit we’ve made a strategic blunder. Job one was to defeat al Qaeda and their leader. Overthrowing Afghanistan hasn't defeated them. Putting up a puppet leader hasn't defeated them. Pakistan now looms eminently as the next country to face our wrath in the continuing saga of: Where’s Waldo? This strategy, and whatever we hope to gain from it, by any measure of success, isn’t worth the precious lives that will be lost in the process. It's time to bring the troops home, and figure out another way to catch terrorists, and secure our country from their wrath.

Is Civility An Endangered Speech?

From time to time we all forget the manners we’re taught in kindergarten. We’re human. To err is human. Simple manners are the framework of our civil behavior- like please and thank you. But today, people aren’t forgetting their manners; they’re deliberately trading graciousness for meanness. Recent outbursts have not been isolated to politics- movie stars, news commentators and sports celebrities have all popped their cork in recent days. This degrading behavior didn’t just happen over night. The norm of accepted decorum has been drifting away from graciousness for years. I miss William F. Buckley. I almost never agreed with him, but I respected him. He was a gracious conservative. He made his points intelligently, with class.

He stands in strong contrast to the plethora of conservative cable news and AM Talk Radio commentators. We’re inundated with rude and belittling language 24/7. We seldom hear his opponents address the President as Mr. President, or President Obama- they make a point to show disrespect- otherwise listeners might mistake graciousness for approval. By keeping the tone rude, it’s unambiguous where they stand. All the vitriol that flows from them paints their image of the President as an evil man, with evil intentions. I think his intentions are honorable, not devious, as they would have us believe.

A majority elected him, but a large minority fiercely opposed him. The President campaigned for change, and he’s trying to keep his promise. So fasten your seat belts- we're in for more turbulence for at least 3 years and 3 months. This is the first of many conflicts yet to come- after health reform; it will be gun control, abortion, government regulation, civil rights, infrastructure modernization, education, taxes, climate change, defense spending, environment, or energy independence. I hope we can survive all these upcoming battles, and become a better society in the process, before we reach a point of no return to civility.

Obama’s War: “Evaluating Progress in Afghanistan-Pakistan”

During the presidential campaign Senator McCain made a big issue of then Senator Obama’s statement that we were conducting clandestine counterinsurgency operations in Pakistan. It was along the lines of “…you never admit to an operation that hasn’t been released to the public as policy”. Senator McCain’s rebuke of Obama is at the heart of our misguided foreign policy. We slink around in the shadows like a rat, attempting to bend other governments to our liking.

Now that we’ve admitted the CIA is fighting a war in Pakistan, we need a policy there too. It’s very troubling that the three-page draft given to Congress on Wednesday, 9/16/09, seems to have as much emphasis on Pakistan as Afghanistan. Dialogue on this issue is not front page news- obviously overshadowed by the health care debate.  It seems unthinkable, but President Obama seems to be following in his predecessors footsteps and we're letting it happen. Are we asleep at the wheel?

 You can read the full reprint of the document at this web site:
 "Evaluating Progress in Afghanistan-Pakistan"

It states our objectives and includes a lot subjective metrics to measure progress. They’re all BS. The President will be able to claim success whenever it’s convenient to do so. If he needs more troops, he'll be able to justify that too.

Here are the President’s objectives and my take on them:
1- Disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan
This is the only objective worth pursuing – the others just get us bogged down in another Vietnam. We don’t need 100,000 troops to do this.

2a- Assist efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan
Why do we have to enhance civilian control in Pakistan? Are our troops going to Pakistan? Or is this the CIA? This is new.

2b- Develop Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capabilities
Why do we have to develop their military capabilities? Who develops their capability? Our troops? The CIA?

2c- Involve the international community more actively to forge an international consensus to stabilize Pakistan
How do we stabilize Pakistan? Invade them too? Overthrow their government as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

3a-Defeat the extremist insurgency, secure the Afghan populace, and develop increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.
He doesn't mention the Taliban. The insurgency is the Taliban. They live there. It’s their country. We’ll have to kill them all or stay there forever. They fought the British for 80 years. It sounds like we never plan to leave.

3b- Promote a more capable, accountable and effective government in Afghanistan…
How do we do this without usurping their sovereignty? Would we like another country promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in the U.S.?

3c- Involve the international community more actively to forge an international consensus to stabilize Afghanistan
NATO already has 30,000 troops there. I don’t think Europe is as foolish as we are. They’ll have the good sense get out before we do.

We seem to all be hypnotized by the President.  This is not the "good" war. It's not worthy of one precious American life. We’re going in the wrong direction. We’re going in. We should be going out.

Planned Missile System Dropped, but Not Forgotten

It's too bad that our relationship with Russia hasn't changed very much since the fall of the Iron Curtain and dissolution of the Soviet Union. We can thank President Bush for his ineptitude in world affairs. He wasted  eight years. While he was in office, instead of reaching out to Russia when they were at their most vulnerable state of social realignment, we continued to treat them as our worst enemy. The result? The seedlings of freedoms and democracy were are all but squashed by Putin. In response, we stiffened our backs and quickly returned to a posture of guarded dialogue. Life was so bad under the new democracy in Russia, the people longed for the good old days of Communism, when they at least had pride in their country, and people spoke of Russia as a world power to be feared and respected.

Vladimir Putin exploited that frustration. Today Russia is a quagmire of gangsters and greedy, uncaring, selfish capitalists, exploiting all that is good about the country and nurturing old belligerent behaviors in the process. The people have neither the freedoms of our society or the entitlements of their old communist system. Is it natural law that when opposite ideologies converge we get the worst of both worlds, rather than the best of each-- or do we have to work at making it come out that way?

President Bush exacerbated the problem by proposing a missile defense system in former Soviet Block countries. It doesn’t take a Henry Kissinger to figure out why he was doing it- it was childish cold war behavior on his part and inexcusable. He claimed Iran was an emminent threat. Iran wasn’t the threat, and still isn’t- Russia was his threat, but he wouldn't admit it. Russia called him out on it by inviting the U.S. to put the missile system in Russia. It was an embarrassing overture for President Bush to turn down. We missed an opportunity to challenge the President on his true objective by not making more of the overture at the time- the press and Congress were asleep at the wheel.

President Obama has taken a small step for humankind by dropping Bush’s insane plan. Putin thanked Obama, but the damage was already done. I was disheartened by the response from the Russian people. They’re so distrustful of our motives, they only see the action as dropping an old gun pointed at their head, to be replaced with another more dangerous one. If the people distrust us this badly, can we ever reconcile our differences, or are we forever destined to be divorced?

Only President Obama Would Bring a Microphone to a Knife Fight!

He is one of the great orators of our time, but he hasn’t played hardball on health reform, and now we have to accept a mediocre health bill- barely reform at all. The Republicans are holding their ground not to endorse the bill in any form, yet Senator Baucus snubbed his party and still gave away the public option, even after he failed to bring a single Republican into the fold. Here’s the proposed Senate bill: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
It’s a nice, insurance company friendly bill. Happy reading.

It doesn’t seem to matter if over 70% of all Americans think the public option is a good idea, or even if over 60% of the doctors endorse it. It’s disgusting just how blatantly Senator Baucus has ignored his constituents, the President, nation public opinion, and his colleagues in the House. And why is he doing this? He’s keeping his word to prevent real health care reform. That’s what his sponsors in the health cartel paid for, and he’s not letting them down. 

President Obama can talk until the cows come home, but he brought the wrong weapon to the fight. It’s not working. Senator Baucus didn’t even flinch. The President has failed because he didn’t secure leadership on his behalf-- someone who’s aligned with his goals. He hasn’t learned how to use his power to his advantage. He’s showing his inexperience in how Washington really works. It’s time to put away the Carter playbook and dust off the Johnson playbook. Hey, those are fighting words! Where’s my microphone?

Freedom- The Fleas Come with the Dog

We get pretty frustrated about what works and what’s broken in our democracy. Some people would say it isn’t a democracy. We elect people to represent us. We’d like to think they speak for the majority who elected them. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. A person elected to public office with 51% of the vote will displease half of the people all of the time, and the rest of the people some of the time.

That explains the frustration, but not the anger. The anger is the brainchild of Evangelical Politicians, AM Talk Radio and Cable News pundits who have lowered the bar on civility. They know that an intelligent, thoughtful dialogue on the issues will put people to sleep. The world can only tolerate one NPR news program. So they ratchet up the testosterone, poke a stick in the hornet’s nest of the disenfranchised, and pour gas on every issue to keep the energy level of dissention revved up.

What results is a latent displeasure with the elected representative by most of the people all of the time. These vocal pundits know this, so they keep the pressure up to sway the thinking of a small percentage of people who will decide the next election. It seems rather flippant - we vote them in, we vote them out- and it’s the 2% of the voters on the margin that are tilted to the left or the right by the effectiveness of the sales pitch – the one liners, the smears and fears relentlessly flashed on the boob tube.

So let’s keep our eyes on the big picture, and not be swayed by the emotion around the issue of the moment. As I write this critique of our process, all the pundits are getting lots of airtime, the raucous town hall meetings are still news, lies and half truths continue to flood the airways, and one elected representative publicly called our President a liar. Civility is suffering, but freedom of speech is healthy. We just have to remember the fleas come with the dog.

Will we- "long endure... or... perish from the earth”?

I’d like to continue the discussion about values and consensus. Why do our core values, the values we care about the most, inhibit consensus building? Does the thought of compromising our core values anger us? Is it a bridge too far? Is the United States typical of most countries or are we different? If we make decisions and judgments about policy based on our core values, how does it work if the population is very diverse or very similar?

Societies that are very homogenous, and small, may find it easier to gain consensus to solve problems because their core values may be similar. A common culture shapes their common core values. Also, consensus may be easier to achieve with fewer people defending their core values. By contrast, the United States is very large and diverse; our core values are varied, so consensus comes harder for us- if ever.

We see core value alignment on a small scale almost everywhere. People worship together. Communities develop covenants that reflect a set of core values. People who agree with those covenants choose to live in that community because it mirrors their core values . It even may be reassuring to know that everyone in the community is like-minded. It could be a church, golf condo community, or a self-sustaining, intra-dependent community off the grid.

Beyond the micro level, when our country is confronted with issues that effect everyone- like health care reform, the diversity of our core values creates an idealogical traffic jam. It wasn’t any easier when the country was young. Far from it- we enslaved an entire race of people. Our core values divided us then, and we went to war over our differences.

Today, our unwillingness to compromise our core values has us in gridlock. We’re dividing ourselves between liberals and conservatives, urbanites and suburbanites, aliens and non-aliens, haves and have-nots, environmentalists and developers, pro-life and pro-choice, capitalists and socialists, straights and gays, energy users and savers, war and peace… Can we “long endure...” this political environment, as Lincoln said, or will “ we perish from the earth..”? We haven’t gone to war over our differences again, so maybe there’s hope.

Health Reform- Full Throttle Along Party Lines

There doesn’t seem to be any hope of consensus and bi-partisan compromise on health reform. Both sides have signaled they will not give up or give in on the issues that divide us. Throwing the public option under the bus will only pull in the Blue Dog Democrats- no Republicans. The polarization of our ideologies is growing stronger, and seems to be squeezing the moderates and swing voters completely out of the picture. You can count them on one hand today. Will they turn on their party? Will they cancel each other out? It will be interesting to see where they land in the final days of the tussle to get the Senate bill through.

Why is consensus harder to achieve today? Or has it always been hard-to-impossible, but we hold out the dream that our American system of government is rooted in an ideal of fair play, doing what’s right for the people? Whose people? Your people? My people? Doing what’s right depends on where you sit in the political spectrum. One person’s sin is another’s virtue. Big government-little government, regulate-hands off, spend all the money in the world trying to catch a terrorist- but not a dime to cure a sick neighbor going bankrupt with a terminal illness.

Everyone seems to be caught in the magnetic pull of one side or the other. The more we become a bi-modal distribution of politic thought; it leaves fewer people in the middle to be the peacemakers- the negotiators. We used to have a Congress with a fringe group on the left and right, and a big moderate group in the middle. Now we seem to have a fringe group in the middle and a big group on the left and the right- and growing larger. As the middle gets pulled to one side or the other, the political poles become ever stronger and more rigid to their ideology. Cable news, AM talk radio, and lobbyists keep pouring gas in the fire, forcing politicians to take sides, denigrating those in the middle as “moles” or “turn coats”.

If we all stamp our feet and hold our breath until turn blue on every issue, unless we get our way, what’s to become of the great social experiment we call America? President Obama has said we’ll get health reform that gives us 80% of what we need. The 20% of what we’d like will be collateral damage just to satisfy the Blue Dogs- and the vote appears to be full throttle along party lines. Gone are the days when an 80% solution could be called a good thing. The magnetic pole on the left will feel they’re principles are compromised. The magnetic pole on the right will feel their principles are compromised. Did I repeat myself?

Why are We Conservative or Liberal?

What makes us liberal or conservative? I suppose it’s our value system. I’m not a psychologist. Far from it, but I can speak from my own experience. We grow up being exposed to situations that teach us a set of values. These values become our framework we use to form our opinions. Over time a set of values becomes the mainspring that makes us tick. Our likes and dislikes are reflected in our personal set of values. It’s how we see the world.

Can we change our values? I think so, but it takes time. We form a set of values when we’re young. They stay with us, but they continue to develop throughout life. As we grow older, and hopefully wiser, we see values from a different perspective. The rank order of what’s more important, and what’s less important moves around.

It’s not capricious. It takes many years to alter the priority of our values. If they changed overnight, then they really aren’t values- just passing thoughts or emotions. I suppose someone could have a eureka moment, like a born again religious experience, but I think that too comes out of the emotion of the moment- still guided by a lifelong baggage of values we carry.

So why are some people conservative and others liberal? When I listen to conservatives, values such as family, honor, patriotism, self-reliance, work ethic and loyalty seem to be high on the list. Liberals often speak of justice, diversity, social compassion, empathy, charity and forgiveness. Does it mean one excludes the other? Not at all. We all have these values. We all carry them around with us. What makes us conservative or liberal is a matter of what values are higher on our internal priority list.

So why is a subject like health reform so contentious? It gets to the heart of our values. We stand at the ready to defend the honor of our values, and they are very different.

Liar, Liar, Whose Pants Are on Fire?

I like the parliamentary form of government. It’s no holds barred, unbridled freedom of speech has a ring of sincerity that Congressional decorum lacks. Congress acts like it’s in church. Everyone is so nice to everyone all the time. They refer to the “Gentleman from the state of…” and “my dear colleague this and that”- all the while they hate their guts. Where’s the honesty in that? It would be great theater if we could watch Senators and Congressmen shout each other down. You know, like at those town hall meetings in August. Should decorum be held in higher esteem than freedom of speech and sincere statements of belief? I don’t think so.

Joe Wilson’s 15 minutes of infamy may have shocked the Congress, but I liked it. Here’s a guy saying what he believes, without regard to decorum or his career. If we had more Joe Wilson’s in Congress, then we’d all know exactly where everyone stood on the issues. We haven’t had that kind of honesty since Strom Thurmond stood fast against civil rights- and Senator DeMint said, “…we (Republicans) have to kill health reform- it will be Obama’s Waterloo.” It’s no secret where they stood. They’re not about to compromise their core values. No way.

I realize making laws is the art of compromise, but can it be done without compromising core values? Sometimes I wonder about that. Trying to get a position on issues from middle-of-the-road legislators is like picking the walnut with the pea- they’re so slippery, always testing the wind, horse trading, and wheeling and dealing. Joe’s outburst makes all the other Congressmen and Congresswomen seem wishy-washy. Joe’s not about to give up his core values - even it means walking the gangplank off the ship of state to oblivion.

I was so moved by his actions, I sent 20 bucks to Rob Miller, his Democratic opponent. Rob raised a million dollars in 48 hours following Joe’s unprecedented two-word freedom of speech outburst. That’s $500,000 for each word. It’s reassuring to know that good things can come from people being honest and open about their beliefs.

Iran: An Island of Stability in a Sea of Turmoil

That’s what President Jimmy Carter called Iran when he was a guest of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in 1977. Two years later the people overthrew him. So why was it an "island of stability"? Was it democracy? No. Was it freedom of speech and assembly? No. Were people free to address their grievances to the government? No again.


Let’s ask some more questions. Was it because the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in 1953 and propped up a government under the Shah? Was it because we sold the Shah planes, ships and weapons? Was it because we sold him a “turn-key” CIA/NSA spy system? Was it because he was a dictator with absolute power over the people? Was it because the CIA had top-secret electronic spy sites in Iran watching over Soviet missile tests in the Caspian Sea? Was it because the CIA paid the Ayatollahs a lot of mullah to stay calm and not rock the political boat? It was probably all of the above and then some. We bought the stability. The only flaw in the plan, however, the Shah was unable to stay in power- even with all our support and money. The song, “Can’t buy me love” comes to mind here.


We lost control of Iran because we went “all in” with the dictator, not the people. The people didn’t like the Shah, but they were powerless to do anything about it. A real grass roots revolt took place. It grew rapidly- too rapidly for the state police to suppress it. In a matter of weeks the people overthrew the Shah. It reminds me of the French revolution- fast, brutal, and by the people. So, do they have freedom and democracy today? Some people might say- sort of, others would say absolutely not. What’s interesting though, they accept the government they have. It wasn’t pressed on them the way the Shah was. So even though it may not have changed their freedoms and democracy, they live with it. They actually have maintained stability in a theology-based government.


So why bring this up? It’s coming up on 30 years since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. There are similarities to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was also a theology-based government under the Taliban. They came into power after we supported them with stinger missiles to kick out the Soviets. They harbored al Qaeda, so we invaded and overthrew their government. We propped up a leader, and now expect the people to re-elect him, so we can have another “island of stability”, but the people aren’t buying it. They’re fighting to get their government back.


Eliminating al Qaeda is a noble goal. We should be unrelenting in our resolve to rid the world of terrorists. But we should admit the distinction between al Qaeda and Taliban. The Taliban are indigenous people of Afghanistan. Are we fighting the Taliban to rid the world of al Qaeda, or just to create another island of stability? It’s time we got out of Afghanistan and focus more on ridding the world of al Qaeda. We should be catching criminals, not overthrowing governments.


And stay tuned for more government intervention- another scary “island of stability” has the bomb- Pakistan. But we’ve been told not to worry; their military has it under control. Great.

Remembering 9/11- Bye Bye Miss American Pie

It’s hard not to reflect on the events of eight years ago. We went to a BB King concert that night. I thought they would cancel it, but they didn’t, and we went anyway. Everyone was quiet. It was like a wake. It was a wake. I remember sitting through the concert thinking, “What am I doing here? The world had forever changed as we know it, and I’m sitting here like nothing had happened."

We lost our innocence in one day. We caught up with the rest of the world that day as a victim of international terrorism. We lost precious lives. In response, we lost freedoms in exchange for more security. We grew the government; created a new agency to manage our security. We passed laws taking our freedoms away, and we had the gall to call it the “Patriot Act”.

We invaded Afghanistan preemptively, and over threw their government. It’s been eight years. We’re still looking for Osama bin Ladin. We invaded Iraq. We overthrew their government- “Mission Accomplished”. We were spreading democracy. We made martyrs and grew new enemies and terrorists- far more than before. We managed to turn world opinion against us, when we should’ve had their full support. It’s understandable. Our belligerent actions made us an international pariah, not the savior of democracy.

We haven’t learned from our mistakes. Now we’re at it again- ramping up the troops in Afghanistan. We can’t even define our objective. It’s senseless. We seem to be numb to what is happening. The government says we could be in Afghanistan for many many more years, and nobody is outraged. We’ve spent a trillion dollars on our national credit card without so much as a whimper. At the same time, we stamp our feet and scream at town hall meetings about the cost of health reform, and show no empathy for the millions of people who suffer, or go bankrupt, because of the sorry state of our health care system.

We lost precious lives. We lost precious freedoms. We lost our innocence.

What if We Lost the Revolutionary War?

How long would we have remained a colony or a member of the commonwealth of the UK? My guess is we would have taken a course similar to Canada and Australia. Today we would undoubtedly be a free, self-governing, sovereign nation. But would it look different? Sure, we’d have Queen Elizabeth on our money. Would England have abolished slavery before we did or after we did? England had outlawed slavery long before we did. So it could’ve been sooner. Would expansion to the west still have taken place without regard for the Native American sovereignty? Absolutely. Great Britain was the largest empire ever to exist, and never considered the well being of native peoples, except for their economic gain. Westward expansion would’ve happened anyway.

So in the end, America would’ve grown as it did anyway. We might not have had a war over slavery, or it may have been a second revolution by the southern states. I don’t think it would’ve made any difference in the end. We'd still have Conservatives like Joe Wilson, but maybe we'd also have single payer health care...

Do you think the US would be different today if we lost the Revolutionary War?

Turning Points in History- What if Outcomes Were Different?

I’m exploring turning points in history. In the next few days I’ll be suggesting a hypothesis of major events in history- exploring what our world would be like today if the outcome of the event was different. Would the world be a different place- even recognizable by our current frame of reference, or would there be no real difference today? Would we still have the same value systems? You can submit your views in the comments section of the article.

Today’s question is: What if Jesus had not been born?

With all respect, people may say He was destined to be born- that God made that scenario and there couldn’t possibly have been any other outcome. That may be true, but God gives us free will. And with our free will we make many mistakes in life, often behaving in a manner that God would disapprove of- committing sin.

Even if He was born, could our free will actions have changed the course of history? Would the outcome be the same as not being born if I suggested: what if He had not been crucified? For instance, what if Judas didn’t rat on him? Or what if the crowd pleaded with Pontius Pilate to spare Jesus? Or what if Pontius Pilate chose to spare him anyway? Would Jesus have been involved in some other event that resulted in Christianity, as we know it?

Would a Messiah have come along later? The Prophet Mohamed did. Would the Muslim religion have spread across Europe? Would the Jewish religion have spread more widely? They’re still anticipating the Messiah. Would northern Europeans have clung to a Pagan, Mother Earth centered theology? Would our sense of right and wrong be different today?

In my opinion I don’t think it would’ve mattered that much. It didn’t matter to Hindus and Buddhists whether Jesus lived or not. People would still be living where they are and doing what they do. Europeans would have adopted some other religion and it would've evolved to be our guidepost in His absence.

Do you think the world would be different today if Jesus had not been born? How might it be different?

My Bedford Potting Shed is One Year Old

Actually, the windows and doors are over a hundred years old! The windows came from the Monroe New Hampshire Town Hall, and the doors came from who knows where- I got them both at Admac Salvage Company in Littleton, NH. The white cedar shakes are turning a light gray. I put a trellis on each side of the doors this spring with morning glory and honey suckle. The shed has been fun to have. Sometimes we have coffee and tea out there in the morning. It’s always warm and bright. It has pleasant smells- a nice mix of drying herbs, potting soil and organic fertilizers. (Click on the photo for a bigger view.)

I’m storing potatoes there for now. I got about 20 pounds of red potatoes from the garden. Aside from the rhubarb and beans, it was the most satisfying crop I grew this year. The blueberries did ok too. I planted a couple new bushes this spring (very hearty Northland). I’ll add a couple more bushes next year.

Overall, it wasn’t a good year for gardening in New England. The garden veggies were pretty much a bust. A fungus got to the tomatoes. Most of the tomatoes rotted on the vine. It’s been cold, and we had nearly record rainfall in June and July. The worms are happy! I’ve never had so many worms in the garden.

Wild flowers thrived. They seem to grow if it’s rainy or dry. The garden is covered with wild Morning Glory, Marla, Queen Anne’s Lace, Daisies, Black-eyed Susan, and Joe Pie Weed. I might let them takeover and give the garden a rest next year. Or not. It’s hard not to plant veggies even if they don’t do well. I would miss caring for them, watering, weeding, and watching over them in the morning with a cup of tea. There’s something about growing food; it’s like hunting- it takes us back to our roots. I think we’re programmed to do it- it’s in our born memory. So I’ll look forward to next year and maybe a better crop.

It’s Labor Day, Got Work?

Got work? My grandfather, Walter Sargent, would ask his friends that. He was sincere. I heard him say it more than once and thought it was an odd thing to ask a friend. It makes perfectly good sense to me now. Living through the Great Depression wasn’t easy. People were glad to have work- any kind of work. So he wouldn’t ask, “Do you have a challenging job?” Or, “How long before your next promotion?” Or, “Is this career going anywhere?” Nope- just, “Got work?”

He was an ironworker all his life. He started at 15 carrying hot rivets and built the Amoskeag Bank on Elm Street in 1911. He worked on all the bridges in Manchester and Portsmouth. He worked on submarines at the Portsmouth Navy Yard. He worked on the Prudential building in Boston. He walked high on skyscrapers. He was fearless. He was a good man. I loved him. He taught me a lot- especially the importance of a good work ethic.

He was a union man. He was in at the ground level- when unions were the only force fighting for a living wage. When he started as an ironworker he was a child laborer. Today we take our working conditions for granted, not even thinking about how they came about. Child labor laws, minimum wage, 40 hour week, worker benefits, safety laws- these changes didn’t come easily. People suffered to bring about better working conditions. That’s why we remember Labor Day.

Today, 9.7% of the working population is unemployed. I’m sure they’re asking their friends that old Depression Era line- “Got work?”

Are We Cooling Down?

It wasn’t a good year for gardening in New England. It’s been cold, and we had nearly record rainfall in June and July. All this cold and rainy weather may be a sign of a record snow year to come! Some people say we’re 10 years into a 30 year cooling period, driven by deep ocean currents. Ocean climatologists have studied this extensively. It's believed to be 30 years of cooling followed by 30 years of warming, on so on. It’s still warmer than ever, there’s no debate about that, but a natural cooling trend would be a blessing. It could decrease the rate of global warming and forestall some of the dire projections of the consequences of a warmer planet.

If the data does show a definite trend downward, and it becomes an accepted climate change, it will be interesting to see how everyone reacts. Will our attempts to have a greener planet get the credit? Will critics say anthropogenic global warming is a scam? Critics of global warming feel that way now. I’ve enclosed the most reputable climate history chart- it's produced by NOAA. The solid blue line is a 5 year average, so it lags the more recent temperatures changes, but it’s clearly flat or even tipping down a little? If you look at the chart in 30 year increments you can see there was a 30 year cooling period from 1880 – 1910, followed by a 30 year warming period to 1940, and another cooling period from 1940 – 1970, and finally a 30 year period of warming through 2000. The last cycle has been the cause of all the concern. One thing is certain- we’re in for interesting debates. Stay tuned over the next 10 years. The cooling cycle from 1940 – 1970 was slight, but it may have been working against man made global warming. The last 30 years were additive, the natural warming cycle augmented anthropogenic global warming- giving us unprecedented increases and causing world wide concern for the future.

The problem hasn’t gone away, but if it is modulated by this natural phenomenon, then we will likely have slower climate change than previous predictions.

President to Address the Democratic States of America

Now conservative Republicans are complaining about the President addressing students in the schools next Tuesday. Many towns in these states are irrate that a Democrat will talk to their young impressionable students. It’s understandable. Both George Bush senior and Ronald Reagan did it too. The Democrats protested then. But the Democrats had good reason to protest. Both Republican Presidents blatantly used it as a platform to further their agenda!

President Obama has said it will only be a simple message of inspiration and encouragement. The message will be released a day ahead for all parents to read and censor from their children if they so choose. What could he embed in a message of inspiration and encouragement?

Will he threaten them with “death panels” if they don’t study hard and stay in school?
Or say something that hints of evolution?
Separation of Church and State?
Birth control?
Education?
Environment?
Energy Independence?
Global Warming?
Abortion?
Torture?
Gun control?
Gay rights?
Health Reform?
Financial Regulation?
Economic Stimulus?

No, it’s very simple. It’s all of the above…The GOP doesn’t want any cracks in their crusade to get rid of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. They can’t risk exposing the kids to a person who speaks so eloquently and rationally. The children might like what they hear… horrors!

Conservative Republicans could offer a rebuttal to his message of inspiration and encouragement. Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin would be ideal. Yeah, that’s what they need to hear- more hate and discontent.

Are All Democrats Red Sox Fans?

Of course not, and equating Taliban to al Qaeda is like saying all Democrats are Red Sox fans! The Taliban is not al Qaeda. It’s time to get out of Afghanistan.

This is our policy on Afghanistan. The President said,
“…I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future…”

We have yet to accomplish the primary goal of defeating al Qaeda. We’re still fighting the wrong enemy. Beating up the Taliban does not equal defeating al Qaeda. There are many ways to fight al Qaeda without having an Army in Afghanistan. An old friend from Texas used to say, “one riot only needs one ranger”. We need to go about it smarter.

Let's face reality. Afghanistan is a tar pit. The British Empire couldn’t control it. The Soviet Union couldn’t control it. The Taliban are the indigenous people of Afghanistan. It’s their country. They will never leave. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is worth one more precious American life. Eventually we’ll grow weary and come home- the sooner the better.

President Obama Walks Loudly and Carries a Little Stick!

Now that the vacation is over, and Congress has been skewered at town hall meetings, the President will address the malcontents at a joint session of Congress. Hands off didn’t work. So now he’ll be more “forceful”, prescriptive, and close the deal. He talks a good talk- possibly the best ever- but that’s not enough this time. It’s still a long putt to the cup.

It will take more than talk to prod Congress along. He needs a big stick, and he doesn’t have a big stick, or any stick for that matter. He’s politically impotent. He lacks the clout a president like Lyndon Johnson cultivated over many years of wheeling and dealing. Lyndon was able to do what John Kennedy, another freshman Senator turned President, couldn’t do- bend the Senators to his will- even the ones who hated him. It was his clout, not his rhetoric that gave us Civil Rights and Medicare to name a few biggies.

President Obama isn’t about to bully the blue dogs, or any tenured Senator only by embarrassing them with rhetoric in public. They’ll only go along if there’s quid pro quo (aka pork), and lots of it! How much pork will it take to bend the will of the blue dogs? When it’s over, if we see bridges to nowhere, airports on remote islands, strip mining on national lands, new federal buildings in every Podunk town, submarines the Navy doesn’t want, etc, etc, all in the opponents states…then we’ll have an idea. I hope America can accept the collateral damage that comes with making the sausage… uh- I mean health care reform.

Would You Like Fries With Your Health Reform?

I have this neat tool from Google that gives me data on the visits to my blog. The analysis shows that postings about food attract more visitors than health reform. So from now on I'll be disguising my health reform campaign with foodie titles to attract the hungry reader!

It doesn’t surprise me. I’m a softie for a good food review too. After seeing “Julie and Julia” I became even more attuned to food articles. And who wants to keep rehashing and ruminating about health reform everyday- enough already! I can’t consume everything on my plate about that meaty subject anyway…and besides, the opponents of health reform give me heartburn…

OK- I realize I can’t cook or write that well, but I’ll keep doing both because I enjoy it- and in the process sneak a few political views into the recipes! I hope you’ll take them with a grain of salt…

Two Hot Dogs and a Coke for 50 Cents!

Now opponents of health care reform say we should just do nothing. We can’t afford the changes. It’ll be too costly. When I was a kid I could buy 2 hot dogs and a coke for 50 cents at Nichol’s Drive-in. Today it costs more than $5, probably closer to $7. Sure, health care will cost more tomorrow than it does today. Everything will cost more tomorrow than it does today. So what’s the point? Should we put our heads in the sand and ignore the existing health care problems? Are we going to pretend that everything is ok, continue to spend $10,000-$20,000 for health insurance annually, and live with the sorry state of what we get for our money?

If you believe that everything is just peachy, and we don’t need to reform health care- you might as well join the “Flat Earth Society”, because you’ll be in the good company of other people who go through life defying all logic and reason.

Who would argue against basic reforms like preventing insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick, or not allowing insurance companies to deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions, or removing caps on life time medical payouts? Everyone benefits from these changes. Without these basic health reforms New Hampshire will become the “Live Sick and Die” state!