Poor Joe, he’s standing at the door saying, “Trick or Treat”, but he already got his treat earlier this year- being able to keep the Chairman’s seat on the Homeland Security Committee- and in exchange for what? Actively campaigning for John McClain? Supporting President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq? Threatening to filibuster with the Republicans against the health care bill? How does a person who stabs you in the back repeatedly deserve such deference? I suppose sixty is his lucky number. As long as Joe is number 60, he can blackmail the Democrats for everything he wants and snub the party in return. It’s something I just can’t understand. If the Democratic Party gets nothing in return for his payola, why do they do it? Is having him caucus with the Democrats really that valuable if he doesn’t go along? Is it the outside chance that he could actually be useful someday? Hardly- He just announced that he will likely campaign for some Republicans in 2010.
Joe Lieberman should shed his Halloween costume- pretending to be Democrat- and just get on with being a Republican. Everything he’s done in the last year has been 24 caret GOP. If the Democrats ever get to 61 seats (not likely in my lifetime), Ole Joe will be thrown out like the old shoe he is. In the meantime, the Democrats are living like the movie Groundhog Day- they get up every day and Joe Lieberman is at the door saying, “Trick or Treat”…
ps- I didn't get this story from Rachel Maddow, we just think alike- that's scary, even on Halloween!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Aligning Democrats is like Herding Cats
My boss used to say managing engineers is like herding cats. Alignment of purpose can be difficult in projects that require many engineers to work together. Engineers are creative and independent minded with different priorities of what's most important. That means the most respected source of any solution is self generated- it comes from within, not from being imposed on them. It is the nature of engineers to solve problems, so it’s unnatural for an engineer to ask someone else for their solution, even less natural to be told what the solution is, and unthinkable to be directed to implement someone else’s solution blindly. You can imagine how challenging it can be to have many engineers get in lock step on large projects if their priorities are not aligned. It sounds like the Democrats have this problem too.
Why are the Democrats unable to exert their agenda with a 60% majority in the Senate? Is it because they have many different priorities and alignment is just too hard to achieve? The Republicans don’t seem to have this problem. They’re clearly more aligned, and seemingly operate as if they were the majority with only 40% of the Senate. But Republicans are more like cows. They all believe the same things, move together on virtually every issue, and seem very contented to do nothing. It’s relatively easy to get the herd to support a policy of “no”. No is pretty simple to rally behind.
Democrats, on the other hand, are completely aligned on their title- Democrat- but they diverge in all directions from that point. It’s been called a rainbow coalition, but the party convention every four years is more a collision than a coalition. A candidate emerges from the chaos of temporary unity and they work together for a few weeks. After the election, they fall off the wagon and wander back into their local or personal priorities for another four years. They're truly cats, not cows. They pick a cause and cling to it tenaciously. It may be civil rights, ethics, peace, gay rights, unions, gun control, work safety, energy, food banks, animal rights, sustainability, arts, health, environment, farming, education… just about anything except investment banking and corporate growth.
The diversity is beautiful, but largely incoherent. It makes unity hard to achieve. Health care reform is running point blank into this diverse group, out of synch with the four year mating season. Money hurts their cause too. The lobbyists have it, a lot of it, and the people don’t. Who would you listen to- a poor voter, or a slick lobbyist in a $2000 suit buying you a $500 dinner and stuffing your pockets with cash until it falls on the floor? If you need money to get re-elected and you’re vulnerable, and you are after all, a politician- the money rules. If the Democrats could ever achieve an 80% majority, they may get enough alignment to get things done. Until that day comes, it’s onward cats- here, there and everywhere… Check out this video, it says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
Why are the Democrats unable to exert their agenda with a 60% majority in the Senate? Is it because they have many different priorities and alignment is just too hard to achieve? The Republicans don’t seem to have this problem. They’re clearly more aligned, and seemingly operate as if they were the majority with only 40% of the Senate. But Republicans are more like cows. They all believe the same things, move together on virtually every issue, and seem very contented to do nothing. It’s relatively easy to get the herd to support a policy of “no”. No is pretty simple to rally behind.
Democrats, on the other hand, are completely aligned on their title- Democrat- but they diverge in all directions from that point. It’s been called a rainbow coalition, but the party convention every four years is more a collision than a coalition. A candidate emerges from the chaos of temporary unity and they work together for a few weeks. After the election, they fall off the wagon and wander back into their local or personal priorities for another four years. They're truly cats, not cows. They pick a cause and cling to it tenaciously. It may be civil rights, ethics, peace, gay rights, unions, gun control, work safety, energy, food banks, animal rights, sustainability, arts, health, environment, farming, education… just about anything except investment banking and corporate growth.
The diversity is beautiful, but largely incoherent. It makes unity hard to achieve. Health care reform is running point blank into this diverse group, out of synch with the four year mating season. Money hurts their cause too. The lobbyists have it, a lot of it, and the people don’t. Who would you listen to- a poor voter, or a slick lobbyist in a $2000 suit buying you a $500 dinner and stuffing your pockets with cash until it falls on the floor? If you need money to get re-elected and you’re vulnerable, and you are after all, a politician- the money rules. If the Democrats could ever achieve an 80% majority, they may get enough alignment to get things done. Until that day comes, it’s onward cats- here, there and everywhere… Check out this video, it says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Medicare Fuzzy Math- How the Health Industry Bilks Us
I’d like to discuss our beloved Medicare and the supplemental coverage provided by private insurance companies. This is rather boring, but timely, I hope it won’t put you to sleep. The contrast of the two medical plans is a vivid portrait of just how bad the private health insurance companies are compared to Medicare. The stark difference between the plans is probably lost to people who only know that Medicare exists, but don’t really have any desire to know the details. So a little primer is in order.
When everyone turns 65, the government offers Medicare in lieu of private insurance. In simple terms it covers all hospitalization costs with about a $1000 annual deductible and 80% of all medical service costs. The cost for all this coverage is about a $100 a month. The private insurance companies sell a policy that covers the difference, roughly 20% of the medical service costs and the deductibles. To keep things fair and prevent exploitation, all companies must offer exactly the same benefits in about a dozens different plans- they range from Yugo to Cadillac coverage- but only on the measly 20% not covered by Medicare. They are also required to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
So what do you think this supplemental coverage costs? Logic would suggest that if Medicare pays 80% at $100 a month, then the total cost might be around $120, right? Wrong. The cheapest plan, the Yugo coverage, only pays a percentage of the 20% (like 50% or 75%) after a large annual deductible of $2000 or even $4000. For that marginal coverage the cost is around $80 a month. Almost what we pay for the primary 80% covered by Medicare! But it gets even crazier. If you want complete supplemental coverage, benefits that pay all the gap costs- the full 20%- the cost is upwards of $250-$300 a month. And that’s per person. So a couple pays twice that amount.
It’s completely beyond me how any rational person can look at these cost comparisons and not be disgusted by what the health cartel is doing to us. They provide 20% of our medical benefits at 3 times the cost of Medicare. Their premiums are more than 10 times higher than they should be for what we get in return. Someday if we ever get universal single payer health care, I’m sure it will come with all the baggage we have in Medicare today. If I were the insurance industry, I’d be lobbying for 80% single payer for everyone, and then pick up the difference with obscene profits, just as they do with Medicare. It’s the perfect storm for the insurance industry- only 20% of the benefits are paid out, and we get bilked at costs almost comparable to the full coverage. I’d like to get some of that action.
OK, I’ve had my say, now you can wake up and go back to reading something interesting… I’m researching Vancouver. It looks like a nice place to live…good skiing, good sailing, and good health care… eh?
When everyone turns 65, the government offers Medicare in lieu of private insurance. In simple terms it covers all hospitalization costs with about a $1000 annual deductible and 80% of all medical service costs. The cost for all this coverage is about a $100 a month. The private insurance companies sell a policy that covers the difference, roughly 20% of the medical service costs and the deductibles. To keep things fair and prevent exploitation, all companies must offer exactly the same benefits in about a dozens different plans- they range from Yugo to Cadillac coverage- but only on the measly 20% not covered by Medicare. They are also required to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
So what do you think this supplemental coverage costs? Logic would suggest that if Medicare pays 80% at $100 a month, then the total cost might be around $120, right? Wrong. The cheapest plan, the Yugo coverage, only pays a percentage of the 20% (like 50% or 75%) after a large annual deductible of $2000 or even $4000. For that marginal coverage the cost is around $80 a month. Almost what we pay for the primary 80% covered by Medicare! But it gets even crazier. If you want complete supplemental coverage, benefits that pay all the gap costs- the full 20%- the cost is upwards of $250-$300 a month. And that’s per person. So a couple pays twice that amount.
It’s completely beyond me how any rational person can look at these cost comparisons and not be disgusted by what the health cartel is doing to us. They provide 20% of our medical benefits at 3 times the cost of Medicare. Their premiums are more than 10 times higher than they should be for what we get in return. Someday if we ever get universal single payer health care, I’m sure it will come with all the baggage we have in Medicare today. If I were the insurance industry, I’d be lobbying for 80% single payer for everyone, and then pick up the difference with obscene profits, just as they do with Medicare. It’s the perfect storm for the insurance industry- only 20% of the benefits are paid out, and we get bilked at costs almost comparable to the full coverage. I’d like to get some of that action.
OK, I’ve had my say, now you can wake up and go back to reading something interesting… I’m researching Vancouver. It looks like a nice place to live…good skiing, good sailing, and good health care… eh?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
No Grid May be Better than a Smart Grid
Yesterday President Obama announced a government subsidy would be provided to modernize our power grid- and focus will be on converting to a smart grid infrastructure. This is much better than doing nothing- something we’ve been very good at for oh so many years, but there may even be a better approach, one that doesn’t perpetuate our dependence on major corporations or a fragile distribution network. It would be a local power system. It could be a single property or a collection of properties in a micro grid.
Our long-term goal should be to have no power grid at all. Why do we have to create all our energy in a few places and move it all over the country to be consumed? Before there even was electricity, if we needed power, we built the facility near a dam, or built a windmill. Wouldn’t it be much cleaner and safer if every home and business generated the power they need? It could be by any means that's cost effective, ie solar, water, wind, tide, etc...
Wires and fiberoptic lines could easily be eliminated. No one would be vulnerable to damaged power lines by storms. We already get TV through satellite. Cell phones provide all the telephone service we need. We need to advance battery technology so we can store it. We should be investing in better battery technology. So if we generated our own power- the smartest grid might be no grid at all.
Here’s the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114204680
Our long-term goal should be to have no power grid at all. Why do we have to create all our energy in a few places and move it all over the country to be consumed? Before there even was electricity, if we needed power, we built the facility near a dam, or built a windmill. Wouldn’t it be much cleaner and safer if every home and business generated the power they need? It could be by any means that's cost effective, ie solar, water, wind, tide, etc...
Wires and fiberoptic lines could easily be eliminated. No one would be vulnerable to damaged power lines by storms. We already get TV through satellite. Cell phones provide all the telephone service we need. We need to advance battery technology so we can store it. We should be investing in better battery technology. So if we generated our own power- the smartest grid might be no grid at all.
Here’s the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114204680
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Public Option Comes Back- but Will it Kill the Bill?
Just when I was finally convinced that the public option was lost forever, reports of it’s demise appear to be immature. And surprise of surprises- who would’ve thought the champion to breath new life into it would be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?
What’s most interesting about this procedure is not that he can get away with doing it, because he can -- it’s that he, of all people, is turning out to be the hardball player -- the David who slays the Goliath Health Cartel. I’ll be honest, if I were choosing players for my rugby team, Harry would not be the first person I’d pick. Boy, did I misjudge him. With I one stroke of a pen, he’s shown more chutzpah than President Obama, by standing up for what really matters when the chips are down. Obama has been woefully non-committal on the public option; I think he doesn’t want anything to threaten passage of the health reform bill, regardless of how worthless it may end up for the people. Victory, by any definition, seems to be more important to him at this point than implementing true reforms.
Now the battle really gets interesting. Will the Democrats get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster? If they don’t, will the bill stay as written? If the Republicans do filibuster, will it help or hurt their cause? Does it prevent the bill from ever being voted on? And finally, will the Democrats stand tall and vote down the bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an entitlement bill for the insurance companies? Several Yogi Berra sayings come to mind here- the best one may be “you can see a lot by watching”…
What’s most interesting about this procedure is not that he can get away with doing it, because he can -- it’s that he, of all people, is turning out to be the hardball player -- the David who slays the Goliath Health Cartel. I’ll be honest, if I were choosing players for my rugby team, Harry would not be the first person I’d pick. Boy, did I misjudge him. With I one stroke of a pen, he’s shown more chutzpah than President Obama, by standing up for what really matters when the chips are down. Obama has been woefully non-committal on the public option; I think he doesn’t want anything to threaten passage of the health reform bill, regardless of how worthless it may end up for the people. Victory, by any definition, seems to be more important to him at this point than implementing true reforms.
Now the battle really gets interesting. Will the Democrats get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster? If they don’t, will the bill stay as written? If the Republicans do filibuster, will it help or hurt their cause? Does it prevent the bill from ever being voted on? And finally, will the Democrats stand tall and vote down the bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an entitlement bill for the insurance companies? Several Yogi Berra sayings come to mind here- the best one may be “you can see a lot by watching”…
Monday, October 26, 2009
Global Warming-Hurry Up and Fix It
The one thing we can all agree on about the human psyche is our impatience to fix things. Take climate change. It crept up on us for a hundred years. When we finally decided that: a) It could be a real problem, and b) we had a hand in making the problem, what do we do? We demand an instant solution- or at least one that gives us results we can see in our lifetime. After all, who could stand still for spending a lot of money, undergo self-imposed restrictions on our lifestyle, and not demand to see the results of our investment?
The lack of a speedy solution seems to be one of the major criticisms of the Cap and Trade Bill. Worldwide efforts to conserve, convert, or bury CO2 to mitigate global warming is just too slow and painful. Opponents say it's too little, too late, and too costly. Well, don’t worry; the free enterprise system will come to our rescue. Smelling opportunity and profit- pseudo climate conscious scientists would like to “geoengineer” the problem so we can all experience that primordial thrill of instant gratification we carry around in our subconscious- probably a latent gene nurtured from generations of slaying wooly mammoths.
I’m not against fixing the problem. I am against expensive, hasty, untested solutions motivated by profit, which might have unknown catastrophic collateral damage down the road. I personally think if it took a hundred years to create the problem and we take another hundred years to fix it; that seems reasonable. Even 50 years from now we may develop earth friendly solutions that could mitigate the problem faster, smarter, cheaper and safer than we can even envision today.
Computer models and simulations would have to be used to validate massive geoengineering solutions- like seeding the heavens with chemicals to create clouds, towing ice bergs to lower latitudes, pumping cold water up from the bottom of the sea, deploying space umbrellas, reforestation of half the world and other such (crazy?) gargantuan undertakings. Having spent a good deal of time with computer models in my career, I can say it’s a scary footing to base any attempts to play god with the environment.
We used to say that computer models would give the analysts the answers they’re being paid to find. It’s nearly impossible to include all the variables. What we don’t know isn’t even considered in the analysis. Another way to look at computer models of this magnitude is: “Garbage in, Gospel out”. If you invest upwards of a billion dollars in a computer model validation of such a major undertaking, the investors expect results- good results. So let’s tread lightly if we do plan to play god, and make sure the implementations, if we go there, are based on human considerations, not profit considerations. Otherwise, we’re in trouble before we start.
The lack of a speedy solution seems to be one of the major criticisms of the Cap and Trade Bill. Worldwide efforts to conserve, convert, or bury CO2 to mitigate global warming is just too slow and painful. Opponents say it's too little, too late, and too costly. Well, don’t worry; the free enterprise system will come to our rescue. Smelling opportunity and profit- pseudo climate conscious scientists would like to “geoengineer” the problem so we can all experience that primordial thrill of instant gratification we carry around in our subconscious- probably a latent gene nurtured from generations of slaying wooly mammoths.
I’m not against fixing the problem. I am against expensive, hasty, untested solutions motivated by profit, which might have unknown catastrophic collateral damage down the road. I personally think if it took a hundred years to create the problem and we take another hundred years to fix it; that seems reasonable. Even 50 years from now we may develop earth friendly solutions that could mitigate the problem faster, smarter, cheaper and safer than we can even envision today.
Computer models and simulations would have to be used to validate massive geoengineering solutions- like seeding the heavens with chemicals to create clouds, towing ice bergs to lower latitudes, pumping cold water up from the bottom of the sea, deploying space umbrellas, reforestation of half the world and other such (crazy?) gargantuan undertakings. Having spent a good deal of time with computer models in my career, I can say it’s a scary footing to base any attempts to play god with the environment.
We used to say that computer models would give the analysts the answers they’re being paid to find. It’s nearly impossible to include all the variables. What we don’t know isn’t even considered in the analysis. Another way to look at computer models of this magnitude is: “Garbage in, Gospel out”. If you invest upwards of a billion dollars in a computer model validation of such a major undertaking, the investors expect results- good results. So let’s tread lightly if we do plan to play god, and make sure the implementations, if we go there, are based on human considerations, not profit considerations. Otherwise, we’re in trouble before we start.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Collateral Damage of Good Intentions
It's ironic how often we do something good and it turns out to have a downside. MTBE was added to our gas to make the fuel burn cleaner and produce less air pollution. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Yet, after a few years we noticed it turning up in our wells and drinking water. Then it also turned out to be a carcinogen. Why couldn’t we have researched the downside before it was introduced? It would seem to be a simple process. In all likelihood it was rushed through under lobby pressure because cars would test lower in emissions with the additive- a freebie for the car manufacturers. Notice how quietly it went away. I think someone is trying to avoid a megasuit.
Another attempt to clean up the air came with the introduction of catalytic converters in the early seventies. Unburned hydrocarbons were being spewed into the air and created heavy smog in urban areas. The air was dirty- even unhealthy to breath at times- cities issued warnings to stay inside on particularly bad days. It continues to today in some cities. Catalytic converters did a great job of removing the unburned hydrocarbons and city smog was reduced measurably. The byproduct of the converters is water and carbon dioxide. CO2 was considered a friendly gas, even essential to the environment. Now CO2 is classified as a polutant. Today vehicles with catalytic converters produce nearly one-third of the world’s CO2. Would global warming have continued without the introduction of catalytic converters? Sure. Would it be worse today without catalytic converters? That’s a debatable question.
How about butter? We were driven away from it only to be victimized by hydrogenated fats.
Recycling glass, plastic and paper is another good intention- and probably worthwhile, but at what cost? When these products were mandated to be recycled, the primary motivation was to unclog our landfills. I don’t think anyone thought about the energy spent, or the carbon footprint of the process. It would be interesting to know if it takes more energy or less energy to use recycled material to manufacture products, rather than to make things out of raw materials. Reusing makes sense. I’d pay extra if someone would refill a bottle. Zero waste products make sense, but making products, and then using a lot of energy to remanufacture them- I don’t know. I’d like to see the round trip energy cost of that process.
Have you noticed how long the CYA statement is on prescription drugs? They seem to go out of their way to tell you how bad all the side effects could be, so if you do suffer from it, they’re covered and they can say I told you so. Why should we have to put up with such nonsense? It seems like the FDA has gone to sleep on us. If the drug makes you sick instead of healing you, they should be liable. Putting a label on a bottle shouldn’t absolve the drug industry of their responsibility to do no harm. It’s crazy. If we ever get a Consumer Protection Agency, the collateral damage of good intentions might improve in many areas.
Another attempt to clean up the air came with the introduction of catalytic converters in the early seventies. Unburned hydrocarbons were being spewed into the air and created heavy smog in urban areas. The air was dirty- even unhealthy to breath at times- cities issued warnings to stay inside on particularly bad days. It continues to today in some cities. Catalytic converters did a great job of removing the unburned hydrocarbons and city smog was reduced measurably. The byproduct of the converters is water and carbon dioxide. CO2 was considered a friendly gas, even essential to the environment. Now CO2 is classified as a polutant. Today vehicles with catalytic converters produce nearly one-third of the world’s CO2. Would global warming have continued without the introduction of catalytic converters? Sure. Would it be worse today without catalytic converters? That’s a debatable question.
How about butter? We were driven away from it only to be victimized by hydrogenated fats.
Recycling glass, plastic and paper is another good intention- and probably worthwhile, but at what cost? When these products were mandated to be recycled, the primary motivation was to unclog our landfills. I don’t think anyone thought about the energy spent, or the carbon footprint of the process. It would be interesting to know if it takes more energy or less energy to use recycled material to manufacture products, rather than to make things out of raw materials. Reusing makes sense. I’d pay extra if someone would refill a bottle. Zero waste products make sense, but making products, and then using a lot of energy to remanufacture them- I don’t know. I’d like to see the round trip energy cost of that process.
Have you noticed how long the CYA statement is on prescription drugs? They seem to go out of their way to tell you how bad all the side effects could be, so if you do suffer from it, they’re covered and they can say I told you so. Why should we have to put up with such nonsense? It seems like the FDA has gone to sleep on us. If the drug makes you sick instead of healing you, they should be liable. Putting a label on a bottle shouldn’t absolve the drug industry of their responsibility to do no harm. It’s crazy. If we ever get a Consumer Protection Agency, the collateral damage of good intentions might improve in many areas.
Friday, October 23, 2009
In the Dog Days of the War, Recession and Health Reform
You know we’re in the dog days of politics when the esteemed NY Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks writes a column about Obama’s education reform. After all the conflict and hoopla of the past several months it’s nice to read about something different. It’s time to move on.
The recession will end when it ends. No talking by the media gabinators or artful Op-Ed columns will hasten the recovery. The Dow continues to inch upward and unemployment appears to be inching downward. You can’t drive over any bridge or road in America that isn’t under repair with stimulus funds. It is what it is. There’s no changing it now.
Health reform is in the ninth inning. If you’re against it, you’re losing 10 to zip. If you want universal single payer, you were ejected from the game in the first inning. If you want the public option, you’re still behind by one run, and you have one more at-bat with 2 outs, and nobody on base. It’ll take a home run just to push the game into extra innings.
The President is showing signs of indecision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. The conservative gabinators smell blood. The war is in a holding pattern while he decides how to fight his war without appearing to look like the warmonger he ran against to get elected.
The 2010 election campaigns are starting to fill their war chests, but it’s still way too early to think about who will be Mr. October, better yet what the October surprise will be. The only thing that’s certain; Republicans will gain some seats. The party on the outside always picks up seats mid-term, and it won’t be any different this time.
So the brilliant David Brooks wrote about “The Quiet Revolution” in education reform today. A noble topic, but not the fire and brimstone we’ve become accustomed to lately. If we don’t get out of the dog days of politics soon we’ll all be putting our pens down.
The recession will end when it ends. No talking by the media gabinators or artful Op-Ed columns will hasten the recovery. The Dow continues to inch upward and unemployment appears to be inching downward. You can’t drive over any bridge or road in America that isn’t under repair with stimulus funds. It is what it is. There’s no changing it now.
Health reform is in the ninth inning. If you’re against it, you’re losing 10 to zip. If you want universal single payer, you were ejected from the game in the first inning. If you want the public option, you’re still behind by one run, and you have one more at-bat with 2 outs, and nobody on base. It’ll take a home run just to push the game into extra innings.
The President is showing signs of indecision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. The conservative gabinators smell blood. The war is in a holding pattern while he decides how to fight his war without appearing to look like the warmonger he ran against to get elected.
The 2010 election campaigns are starting to fill their war chests, but it’s still way too early to think about who will be Mr. October, better yet what the October surprise will be. The only thing that’s certain; Republicans will gain some seats. The party on the outside always picks up seats mid-term, and it won’t be any different this time.
So the brilliant David Brooks wrote about “The Quiet Revolution” in education reform today. A noble topic, but not the fire and brimstone we’ve become accustomed to lately. If we don’t get out of the dog days of politics soon we’ll all be putting our pens down.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Old Dogs and New Tricks
We see what we know. Our brain has taught us to recognize what we see, but what if we see something new- something completely new? Are we the 2-month-old newborn all over again- staring in wonder? Or do we instantly correlate our vision with our life’s library stored in our little gray cells and surmise to know what it is? I don't think so. I think we are always newborns. As we live, seeing something new and learning about it occurs less often, but our brain still works like a newborn when it happens. I think we come the closest to newborn blankness when we view an abstract painting.
Who hasn’t stared at a Jackson Pollock abstract like this for the first time and thought- what is it? Or, anybody can paint like that- it doesn’t look like anything. When our brain scans our memory banks and tries to correlate everything we expect it to be against what we view, it comes up empty- no correlation. Therefore, it doesn’t look like anything. That’s the beauty of the art. It’s so completely original that it has no frame of reference. We are learning something new. The really cool thing is the next time you view a Jackson Pollock; you may recognize it before you look to see who the artist is. Our brain is uncanny that way. Our brain notices style and nuances to recognize something we haven’t even seen before- like unique handwriting. That’s how we learn to recognize what we see. Picasso and Matisse are other great examples of unique painters, yet they both have a style that we learn to see and recognize. From a distance we can safely say- "oh, that’s a Picasso", and upon closer inspection we confirm it.
We also learn new thoughts throughout our life, probably even more than we see. That’s why great stories stir our mind and stimulate us so much. It’s fun to read something new, yet familiar, and have the internal correlation of our knowledge and experiences embellish the words we read, and pull us through the story. When food or odors are described, we taste and smell them in our minds. They're familiar to us and we relate to them deeply. Sequels to novels are like that too. We’re familiar enough with the setting to breeze through the story comfortably, without questions or uneasiness that comes from reading an entirely new author for the first time-like JK Rowling. The unfamiliar names, places and behaviors can be unsettling, because we don’t have the apriori knowledge. But as we learn the lingo and all the syntax of the two worlds portrayed in Harry Potter books, we’re learning just as a child learns. We take in the unfamiliar words and build a new internal library of thoughts, and then the setting and the story becomes easy to read and understand. It all happens without trying. Don’t you just marvel at what our brain can do? Computers, as fast and as good as they are, haven’t come close to replicating how we think and learn.
We also learn new thoughts throughout our life, probably even more than we see. That’s why great stories stir our mind and stimulate us so much. It’s fun to read something new, yet familiar, and have the internal correlation of our knowledge and experiences embellish the words we read, and pull us through the story. When food or odors are described, we taste and smell them in our minds. They're familiar to us and we relate to them deeply. Sequels to novels are like that too. We’re familiar enough with the setting to breeze through the story comfortably, without questions or uneasiness that comes from reading an entirely new author for the first time-like JK Rowling. The unfamiliar names, places and behaviors can be unsettling, because we don’t have the apriori knowledge. But as we learn the lingo and all the syntax of the two worlds portrayed in Harry Potter books, we’re learning just as a child learns. We take in the unfamiliar words and build a new internal library of thoughts, and then the setting and the story becomes easy to read and understand. It all happens without trying. Don’t you just marvel at what our brain can do? Computers, as fast and as good as they are, haven’t come close to replicating how we think and learn.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
FOX News- Smeared and Valanced
FOX News is whining because the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made disparaging remarks about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck the other day. FOX News is trying to pump this up into something worth talking about by drawing comparisons to the Nixon era “Enemies List”. Both commentators have been relentless in their smear campaign against the Obama administration, and Beck was responsible for bringing down Van Jones, the president’s Environmental Advisor. Van Jones chose to resign rather than be a missile magnet for conservative predators like Beck. He could have fought it, but he chose to minimize negative press for the administration. It was a loss for progressives. He was an effective agent for change. The conservatives knew it.
As to the Nixon thing, their comparison to Nixon’s “Enemies List” is absurd and almost laughable. Nixon created a political enemies list and treated it as top-secret information. He enlisted former CIA agents to work directly for the White House staffers, Halderman and Erlichman, who conducted illegal search and wire tapping against a large group of reporters, liberals, and other suspicious anti-war activists. It was clandestine McCarthyism. By contrast, the Obama administration is openly discussing their displeasure with FOX News for all the world to see and hear. There is nothing remotely clandestine or illegal about it. But why even get into this schoolyard rumble?
Frankly, when I first heard about the White House tangling with FOX it bothered me. I thought this would be a win-win situation for FOX and lose-lose for the White House. I still do. This feels like the high school drop-out calling the principal names from outside the school, then having the principal get into a shouting match from the school window. Really Mr. President, please don’t be drawn into this pig fight. It does little to maintain the high road toward civil behavior- and raises suspicions about darker, more sinister motives for the tangle- like an “Enemies List”.
And while the White House gets a sound bite, FOX can milk the issue 24/7, and they are. One reporter called it the gift that keeps on giving for FOX and the gabinators. My advice to the President is back off, and get on with the more important matters of state. So when he has his next press conference he should invite FOX and let them ask a question. Why not? To an informed audience, the questions are certain to be no-brainers anyway.
As to the Nixon thing, their comparison to Nixon’s “Enemies List” is absurd and almost laughable. Nixon created a political enemies list and treated it as top-secret information. He enlisted former CIA agents to work directly for the White House staffers, Halderman and Erlichman, who conducted illegal search and wire tapping against a large group of reporters, liberals, and other suspicious anti-war activists. It was clandestine McCarthyism. By contrast, the Obama administration is openly discussing their displeasure with FOX News for all the world to see and hear. There is nothing remotely clandestine or illegal about it. But why even get into this schoolyard rumble?
Frankly, when I first heard about the White House tangling with FOX it bothered me. I thought this would be a win-win situation for FOX and lose-lose for the White House. I still do. This feels like the high school drop-out calling the principal names from outside the school, then having the principal get into a shouting match from the school window. Really Mr. President, please don’t be drawn into this pig fight. It does little to maintain the high road toward civil behavior- and raises suspicions about darker, more sinister motives for the tangle- like an “Enemies List”.
And while the White House gets a sound bite, FOX can milk the issue 24/7, and they are. One reporter called it the gift that keeps on giving for FOX and the gabinators. My advice to the President is back off, and get on with the more important matters of state. So when he has his next press conference he should invite FOX and let them ask a question. Why not? To an informed audience, the questions are certain to be no-brainers anyway.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Greatness in Society- a Lesson From Violins
Does greatness beget greatness, or can it come from something less? Violins are a good example of greatness begetting greatness. We all know some violins play better than others. The greatest violins play the best of all. Scientists and artisans of the craft have been studying this phenomenon for ages- trying to duplicate the essence of a great Stradivarius by understanding it’s design and construction in the minutest detail. Try as they may, an exact copy with the same quality of sound can’t be duplicated. A theory postulates that time is a missing ingredient. One can copy every detail of the design and construction, but only time will determine if the copy is truly up to par. Two hundred or more years may be needed to age the violin to greatness.
But time alone is not the answer either. My son suggests that it must be played, and played well-- very well-- by virtuosos. So it may be that a great violin can only grow to be great by being played by the greatest violinists. The quality of the violin is actually developed by the player more than by the maker. The sound comes from resonant vibrations within the violin. The structure has points of large displacement and points of minimum displacement as the notes vibrate. The violin develops loose joints and tight joints in all the right places from being played exceptionally well. As the violin is played by a virtuoso the sound quality improves with age. The violin is played to greatness. It takes many lifetimes of expert play to develop the greatest sound quality. Great violins have transferred from generation to generation through the masterful hands of the great players. That, more than anything else, may be the secret to achieving greatness. The converse is also true. Great violins can be degraded, even damaged, if a mediocre violinist plays it. The structure resonates in the wrong places. It doesn’t stay tight where it should, and sound quality is adversely affected.
So while greatness begets greatness in violins, what about our society? Are we playing our way to greatness, or are we ruining a good thing? We started out with a lofty idea on paper and we cling to it today. We’ve made progress over the years, but improvements have come at glacial speed. If we are on a path to greatness, time and careful stewardship will be needed by great leaders for generations to come. Only the best people can shape society toward greatness, but that hasn’t happened very often. Throughout our history, it’s usually the richest people who have influenced our society. Their motivation has been for profit, not the best interests of people. Every time we elect a mediocre leader, our progress to greatness is marred as if being played by a poor violinist. Great leaders just don’t come along often enough to play us into greatness. Greatness can’t happen in one presidential administation. It takes continuous persistence of great leaders for many generations.
President Obama offers hope to a society that yearns for change. Despite his best intentions, the inertia of society will not allow rapid change, regardless of how it benefits the people. Health care reform is a good example. We’ve had over 200 years to play our way to greatness. Can we continue to improve at glacier speed or will we be overtaken by another society? Some people would argue that other countries are creating better societies, and some people would argue to the contrary, but that’s another discussion.
But time alone is not the answer either. My son suggests that it must be played, and played well-- very well-- by virtuosos. So it may be that a great violin can only grow to be great by being played by the greatest violinists. The quality of the violin is actually developed by the player more than by the maker. The sound comes from resonant vibrations within the violin. The structure has points of large displacement and points of minimum displacement as the notes vibrate. The violin develops loose joints and tight joints in all the right places from being played exceptionally well. As the violin is played by a virtuoso the sound quality improves with age. The violin is played to greatness. It takes many lifetimes of expert play to develop the greatest sound quality. Great violins have transferred from generation to generation through the masterful hands of the great players. That, more than anything else, may be the secret to achieving greatness. The converse is also true. Great violins can be degraded, even damaged, if a mediocre violinist plays it. The structure resonates in the wrong places. It doesn’t stay tight where it should, and sound quality is adversely affected.
So while greatness begets greatness in violins, what about our society? Are we playing our way to greatness, or are we ruining a good thing? We started out with a lofty idea on paper and we cling to it today. We’ve made progress over the years, but improvements have come at glacial speed. If we are on a path to greatness, time and careful stewardship will be needed by great leaders for generations to come. Only the best people can shape society toward greatness, but that hasn’t happened very often. Throughout our history, it’s usually the richest people who have influenced our society. Their motivation has been for profit, not the best interests of people. Every time we elect a mediocre leader, our progress to greatness is marred as if being played by a poor violinist. Great leaders just don’t come along often enough to play us into greatness. Greatness can’t happen in one presidential administation. It takes continuous persistence of great leaders for many generations.
President Obama offers hope to a society that yearns for change. Despite his best intentions, the inertia of society will not allow rapid change, regardless of how it benefits the people. Health care reform is a good example. We’ve had over 200 years to play our way to greatness. Can we continue to improve at glacier speed or will we be overtaken by another society? Some people would argue that other countries are creating better societies, and some people would argue to the contrary, but that’s another discussion.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Recession? Decession? Repression? Depression?
People continue to debate what to call the current economic malaise. Most politicians are loath to think of this as a depression; it’s bad karma for incumbents who want to stay in office. Yet we all admit we’re living through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Is it really just a plain old recession? It doesn’t seem to aptly describe the situation we’re living through. I think we should have some in-between characterizations to distinguish this historical time from a recession and still hold it apart from the Great One.
We could call it a repression or a decession. I like decession. It has just enough of both and reminds us of the big D without upstaging it. I don’t like repression. While I do feel repressed by not having an impact on things like health care reform, civil rights, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq- from an economic perspective it feels almost as bad as depression- maybe worse. Is it worse to be repressed or depressed? I suppose a state of depression could come from repression. So could rebellion. That’s what happened in 1776. I don’t think we’re ready for rebellion, not yet anyway.
Events are always catalysts for new words- like Watergate, brinkmanship, payola, etc. So if decession ever makes it into the dictionary I want the credit. It would be cool to have created a new word that people use. If anybody asks you what you think of the economy today, just say it’s the worst decession in our nation’s history and see how they react. Besides, it’s much easier to say than “post traumatic Bush syndrome”.
We could call it a repression or a decession. I like decession. It has just enough of both and reminds us of the big D without upstaging it. I don’t like repression. While I do feel repressed by not having an impact on things like health care reform, civil rights, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq- from an economic perspective it feels almost as bad as depression- maybe worse. Is it worse to be repressed or depressed? I suppose a state of depression could come from repression. So could rebellion. That’s what happened in 1776. I don’t think we’re ready for rebellion, not yet anyway.
Events are always catalysts for new words- like Watergate, brinkmanship, payola, etc. So if decession ever makes it into the dictionary I want the credit. It would be cool to have created a new word that people use. If anybody asks you what you think of the economy today, just say it’s the worst decession in our nation’s history and see how they react. Besides, it’s much easier to say than “post traumatic Bush syndrome”.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Conservation of Grief or Cost- or Both
A friend of mine once said grief is conserved. If someone has a good day, then someone else has a bad day. It’s also been described as a balloon- a fixed amount of volume can be squeezed into various shapes and directions depending on where and how much pressure is applied.
Wealth is much the same. We have a fixed amount of wealth and it moves around like a balloon as well. If we squeeze the available wealth in one direction or another we get different outcomes. The net result is somebody gets less when somebody less gets more.
Debt introduces artificial wealth. If we introduce more money than actually exists, then people have the appearance of a bigger balloon, and the people (or countries) that go into debt, spend the money loaned to them as if it were new wealth. The recipients of this money can’t tell the difference, so they take on the appearance of increased wealth, but the balloon doesn’t really get any larger. When the debtors were unable to repay their loans, the lenders lose the money they expected to get back with profit, and they go under. Bailing them out with more debt just perpetuates the illusion of more wealth.
With health care, both grief and cost are conserved. The health industry claims better health leads to lower cost, but lower for whom? Not us- them. If healthier people cost less, and we’re increasingly a healthier nation as evidenced by higher mortality rates, then why does the cost continue to skyrocket? We don’t seem to be getting any return for our investment in a healthier lifestyle. Private health insurance companies make their money on healthy people- more money comes in and less goes out. So naturally they want us to live a healthy lifestyle, and they want us to pre-pay for our sick care we don’t use, so they can reap obscene profits. The balloon thing here is the health cartel gets richer and we get poorer. They’re healthy and we’re sick. Someday we may get real health reform and the health cartel will get sick and poor, and people will be healthy and financially secure. Someday...
Wealth is much the same. We have a fixed amount of wealth and it moves around like a balloon as well. If we squeeze the available wealth in one direction or another we get different outcomes. The net result is somebody gets less when somebody less gets more.
Debt introduces artificial wealth. If we introduce more money than actually exists, then people have the appearance of a bigger balloon, and the people (or countries) that go into debt, spend the money loaned to them as if it were new wealth. The recipients of this money can’t tell the difference, so they take on the appearance of increased wealth, but the balloon doesn’t really get any larger. When the debtors were unable to repay their loans, the lenders lose the money they expected to get back with profit, and they go under. Bailing them out with more debt just perpetuates the illusion of more wealth.
With health care, both grief and cost are conserved. The health industry claims better health leads to lower cost, but lower for whom? Not us- them. If healthier people cost less, and we’re increasingly a healthier nation as evidenced by higher mortality rates, then why does the cost continue to skyrocket? We don’t seem to be getting any return for our investment in a healthier lifestyle. Private health insurance companies make their money on healthy people- more money comes in and less goes out. So naturally they want us to live a healthy lifestyle, and they want us to pre-pay for our sick care we don’t use, so they can reap obscene profits. The balloon thing here is the health cartel gets richer and we get poorer. They’re healthy and we’re sick. Someday we may get real health reform and the health cartel will get sick and poor, and people will be healthy and financially secure. Someday...
Friday, October 16, 2009
When a COLA is not a COLA
The President may be well intentioned to give a measly $250 bonus to the elderly in a year when the COLA (cost of living adjustment) is not justified, but at what cost to his agenda? This isn’t peanuts- a bonus to 80 million people will cost the government 20 billion dollars. Critics will hound him and once again his bigger agenda will be jeopardized in the process. If he doesn’t get the support of the centrists, he’ll fail. This kind of give-away won’t win the hearts and minds of voters. It will only turn people off.
Coincidentally, Goldman Sachs is doing so well this year, only nine months after the bail-out, they’re on track to give out over 20 billion dollars in bonuses- on record high earnings- all 31,700 employees will receive an average bonus of $700,000. They earned it right? Or did they? We spotted Goldman Sachs billions of dollars so they can go back to the gaming table. Since the house always wins in a casino, and they’re the house, we spotted them a sure bet. How does anybody sitting at a desk, staring at a computer all day really earn $700,000? It’s a good racket if you can get into it, but that’s all it is- a racket.
It speaks volumes about where our country is as we claw our way out the decession- 80 million people are poised to get a tip for doing nothing, and 31,700 bankers are poised get a pot of gold for doing nothing. I think they’re both wrong. We made a mistake bailing out the investment banks, and we’re making another mistake tossing a paltry $250 to the seniors at a not so paltry tab of 20 billion dollars.
Here’s an article on the bonuses:
NY Times Article on Goldman Sachs
Coincidentally, Goldman Sachs is doing so well this year, only nine months after the bail-out, they’re on track to give out over 20 billion dollars in bonuses- on record high earnings- all 31,700 employees will receive an average bonus of $700,000. They earned it right? Or did they? We spotted Goldman Sachs billions of dollars so they can go back to the gaming table. Since the house always wins in a casino, and they’re the house, we spotted them a sure bet. How does anybody sitting at a desk, staring at a computer all day really earn $700,000? It’s a good racket if you can get into it, but that’s all it is- a racket.
It speaks volumes about where our country is as we claw our way out the decession- 80 million people are poised to get a tip for doing nothing, and 31,700 bankers are poised get a pot of gold for doing nothing. I think they’re both wrong. We made a mistake bailing out the investment banks, and we’re making another mistake tossing a paltry $250 to the seniors at a not so paltry tab of 20 billion dollars.
Here’s an article on the bonuses:
NY Times Article on Goldman Sachs
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The USA Patriot Act- or How to Kill the First Amendment
In a rare moment of wisdom Congress placed a sunset expiration when they passed the USA Patriot Act after 9/11. I suppose they actually were concerned about the First Amendment, and their conscience bothered them. Now the Act is about to expire and it seems that we have another rare event- bipartisan action in the Senate- to ensure that it doesn’t go away. It seems we're solidifying the government that Jefferson warned us about- that when security becomes more important than freedom all would be lost.
What ever happened to accountability? Has anyone challenged to what extent the Patriot Act has caught terrorists on American soil? I don’t think they have- well maybe one or two (Possibly Zazi ) - maybe- and mightn’t we have caught them anyway without it?? I wonder if it’s really about terrorists at all. It appears that we’re really using this law to catch drug dealers. The sneak and peak without a warrant has been a boom to law enforcement. We don’t hear much about the instances of wrongful entry or innocent civilians being terrorized in their homes. And of course there’s the occasional collateral damage when civilians draw a gun to protect themselves from an apparent home invasion.
No one would oppose responsible actions to catch terrorists, but we seem to be using the Patriot Act at the expense of the First Amendment, and Congress is asleep at the wheel again. I can’t understand why Congress and the people are so blasé about a law that strikes at the heart of our nation’s freedom. Call your Senator and urge them to let the Patriot Act expire. Tell them the Constitution and the freedom of 300 million people is more important than one or two terrorists, regardless of their intentions against us.
Oh, and while you’re on the phone you might mention that Medicare-for-all would be a good thing too. You could remind them that 45,000 Americans die every year for lack of health care- 15 times more than 9/11- over and over every year.
NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08thu1.html?_r=2
What ever happened to accountability? Has anyone challenged to what extent the Patriot Act has caught terrorists on American soil? I don’t think they have- well maybe one or two (Possibly Zazi ) - maybe- and mightn’t we have caught them anyway without it?? I wonder if it’s really about terrorists at all. It appears that we’re really using this law to catch drug dealers. The sneak and peak without a warrant has been a boom to law enforcement. We don’t hear much about the instances of wrongful entry or innocent civilians being terrorized in their homes. And of course there’s the occasional collateral damage when civilians draw a gun to protect themselves from an apparent home invasion.
No one would oppose responsible actions to catch terrorists, but we seem to be using the Patriot Act at the expense of the First Amendment, and Congress is asleep at the wheel again. I can’t understand why Congress and the people are so blasé about a law that strikes at the heart of our nation’s freedom. Call your Senator and urge them to let the Patriot Act expire. Tell them the Constitution and the freedom of 300 million people is more important than one or two terrorists, regardless of their intentions against us.
Oh, and while you’re on the phone you might mention that Medicare-for-all would be a good thing too. You could remind them that 45,000 Americans die every year for lack of health care- 15 times more than 9/11- over and over every year.
NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08thu1.html?_r=2
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Olympia Snowe- The GOP's True Maverick
The Democrats are grateful to Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe for supporting the proposed health care bill. Unfortunately, she’s done little to impact the outcome. It’s sort of like hitting a solo home run in the 9th inning when your team is ahead by ten runs. It makes you feel good, but that’s about all.
Except for Senator Snowe, the Party-of-No looked pathetically like the bad boys in school being questioned by the teacher for a classroom prank- not looking us in the eye, almost appearing ashamed, they each quietly mumbled “no” when asked how they vote. They must've thought people wouldn’t notice if they said no quietly . Yes, they stuck with their party to oppose the Democrats on this and every issue, but this time they let their constituents down. They knew it. They weren’t defiant. They were ashamed. They let America down. They should be ashamed.
Senator Snowe can sleep well knowing she stood for the interests of her constituents and did the right thing. She is a true maverick- not like the hairbrained redneck from Alaska. It was a courageous act, even if it doesn’t count for anything. If making law is like making sausage, there’s still a glimmer of hope that stupid elements of the Finance Committee’s version may be fixed as the bill gestates it’s way through the final process- we’ll see.
Except for Senator Snowe, the Party-of-No looked pathetically like the bad boys in school being questioned by the teacher for a classroom prank- not looking us in the eye, almost appearing ashamed, they each quietly mumbled “no” when asked how they vote. They must've thought people wouldn’t notice if they said no quietly . Yes, they stuck with their party to oppose the Democrats on this and every issue, but this time they let their constituents down. They knew it. They weren’t defiant. They were ashamed. They let America down. They should be ashamed.
Senator Snowe can sleep well knowing she stood for the interests of her constituents and did the right thing. She is a true maverick- not like the hairbrained redneck from Alaska. It was a courageous act, even if it doesn’t count for anything. If making law is like making sausage, there’s still a glimmer of hope that stupid elements of the Finance Committee’s version may be fixed as the bill gestates it’s way through the final process- we’ll see.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Living In the Wake of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named
Conservatives are tired of Democrats blaming most of our problems on the previous administration, so I’ll rant without naming the sacred elephant, and rub his nose in the mess he created one last time- maybe. While he was in office he spent money like a drunken sailor and the conservatives cheered him on. Here’s a recap of the deficit spending the conservatives approved then, while they sanctimoniously challenge it today:
He gave us tax rebates so we could have the extra money the Government didn’t need. As he said, it’s our money, so we should be able to spend it, not the government. Nice idea, except the Government had already spent it, so all the money he gave us increased the deficit.
He passed no child left behind- a lofty idea except the money to pay for it was left behind.
He was reading to kindergarteners in a Florida school on September 11, 2001 when he was told of the tragedy. Did he say, excuse me children I have to attend to a national crisis? No. He kept on reading. When he finally realized the gravity of the situation, he confided in Donald Rumsfeld, and they decided make war in Afghanistan- more deficit spending.
His only tiptoe into health care reform was prescription drugs for Medicare. He made certain that every private health insurance provider in the nation got a piece of the action. He also neglected to fund it- creating more deficit growth.
While in Afghanistan, his buddies decided it would be a good time to overthrow Iraq. That way we could secure some oil, finish what his daddy started, and you know- spread democracy. Mission accomplished- more deficit spending.
The EPA morphed into the Chamber of Commerce for the mining and drilling industry. The EPA budget was squeezed along with most of the other regulatory agencies, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, BLM, etc to get “big government” off the backs of people. In return, we got bad meat, unsafe airplanes, massive overuse and interference in the RF spectrum, and the Wall St bank bust in return for sloppy oversight and poor regulation.
The Treasury and the Fed reaffirmed their primary concern were the bonuses of their Wall St buddies. After all, Secretary Paulson was rumored to talk in his sleep, “but for the grace of God go I” or something like that- more deficit spending.
So when things aren’t going quite the way I’d like them to with President Obama, I remember life under He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and instantly, I feel better.
He gave us tax rebates so we could have the extra money the Government didn’t need. As he said, it’s our money, so we should be able to spend it, not the government. Nice idea, except the Government had already spent it, so all the money he gave us increased the deficit.
He passed no child left behind- a lofty idea except the money to pay for it was left behind.
He was reading to kindergarteners in a Florida school on September 11, 2001 when he was told of the tragedy. Did he say, excuse me children I have to attend to a national crisis? No. He kept on reading. When he finally realized the gravity of the situation, he confided in Donald Rumsfeld, and they decided make war in Afghanistan- more deficit spending.
His only tiptoe into health care reform was prescription drugs for Medicare. He made certain that every private health insurance provider in the nation got a piece of the action. He also neglected to fund it- creating more deficit growth.
While in Afghanistan, his buddies decided it would be a good time to overthrow Iraq. That way we could secure some oil, finish what his daddy started, and you know- spread democracy. Mission accomplished- more deficit spending.
The EPA morphed into the Chamber of Commerce for the mining and drilling industry. The EPA budget was squeezed along with most of the other regulatory agencies, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, BLM, etc to get “big government” off the backs of people. In return, we got bad meat, unsafe airplanes, massive overuse and interference in the RF spectrum, and the Wall St bank bust in return for sloppy oversight and poor regulation.
The Treasury and the Fed reaffirmed their primary concern were the bonuses of their Wall St buddies. After all, Secretary Paulson was rumored to talk in his sleep, “but for the grace of God go I” or something like that- more deficit spending.
So when things aren’t going quite the way I’d like them to with President Obama, I remember life under He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and instantly, I feel better.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Day Columbus Plundered America
The Native Americans greeted Columbus with open arms. He took advantage of their good will, stole everything of value, raped the women and spread diseases that almost annihilated the entire population. He enslaved people to dig for gold; imprisoned natives and took them to Europe as proof of the new world. Each return trip to the Americas increased the pillage and enslavement of the people. It was the beginning of centuries of exploitation that defined the development of the western hemisphere.
When the Native Americans died off all along the coast, we imported enslaved Africans to replace them. The free enterprise system worked like a charm with free labor for hundreds of years. It’s been 517 years since Columbus discovered America. People were enslaved for 373 of those years. It was 517 years before an African American became a leader on this continent, and even today some people still harbor the vestiges of the culture and prejudices that so defined our history.
We don’t talk about what really happened when Columbus discovered America, and most people don’t want to be reminded of it. We either feel guilt for our ancestor’s transgressions or anger because we don’t feel guilty for events that preceded us. In either case Columbus Day is a sorry excuse for celebration, but we get a three-day weekend and the foliage is pretty. Maybe we should rename it to Foliage Day, Fall Day or Harvest Day- anything but Columbus Day.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Health Care Reform Another 8-12 Years Away
Just when I thought I’d never write another word about health reform I find my frustrated fingers pounding away on the keyboard again. Enough already--it just isn’t going to happen. It’s the proverbial dead horse… Senator Baucus managed to screw up the health reform package to the point where we’ll be right back where it all started, with one big—but— our health insurance rates will skyrocket.
With his version of health reform 25 million people will likely remain uninsured. The health cartel says they’ll be getting all the sick people and rates will have to increase because the healthy people won’t be coming into the market to spread the risk around. Well, there you go. Even the health cartel knows the only long-term fix will be a government run program and they go the way of the dodo. It would appear that we haven't hit bottom yet. Health care will have to get a lot more painful for everybody before Congress will listen to the people. Reaction to the Baucus plan could be the catalyst for real reform sometime in the distant future. Unfortunately it won’t happen for at least a couple flip-flops of Democrats-Republicans-Democrats in control of Congress.
Everyone will hate this plan- as they should- and the centrists will tip to the Republicans in 2010. They won't fix it—not a chance— but they will succeed in delaying reforms. Between a poor health care bill, an energy bill that appears to be DOA, the war in Afghanistan and the discontent over the stimulus give-away, President Obama is on a popularity glide path to Whoville as a one-term president.
So we’ll likely stumble around in the dark with at least one term of a Bush 3.0 look-alike before we ever get another crack at the bat for true health reform. Based on the distance between the Clinton and Obama health reform failures, we probably won’t have another opportunity for 8-12 years. If I weren't going on Medicare in a few months I think I’d move to Canada if this scenario plays out.
With his version of health reform 25 million people will likely remain uninsured. The health cartel says they’ll be getting all the sick people and rates will have to increase because the healthy people won’t be coming into the market to spread the risk around. Well, there you go. Even the health cartel knows the only long-term fix will be a government run program and they go the way of the dodo. It would appear that we haven't hit bottom yet. Health care will have to get a lot more painful for everybody before Congress will listen to the people. Reaction to the Baucus plan could be the catalyst for real reform sometime in the distant future. Unfortunately it won’t happen for at least a couple flip-flops of Democrats-Republicans-Democrats in control of Congress.
Everyone will hate this plan- as they should- and the centrists will tip to the Republicans in 2010. They won't fix it—not a chance— but they will succeed in delaying reforms. Between a poor health care bill, an energy bill that appears to be DOA, the war in Afghanistan and the discontent over the stimulus give-away, President Obama is on a popularity glide path to Whoville as a one-term president.
So we’ll likely stumble around in the dark with at least one term of a Bush 3.0 look-alike before we ever get another crack at the bat for true health reform. Based on the distance between the Clinton and Obama health reform failures, we probably won’t have another opportunity for 8-12 years. If I weren't going on Medicare in a few months I think I’d move to Canada if this scenario plays out.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Thanks for the Peace Prize; Now Back to My War Council
Now that the euphoria of the Nobel Award has dissipated a little, I can’t help but wonder how the President will carry the burden of this lofty accolade. The irony wasn’t lost on the President as he spoke with deep humility about not being deserving of the Nobel Prize- he was probably right. It must be very unsettling to accept the Peace Prize in the middle of a long and heated debate about how to conduct a war in Afghanistan. It’s true that the attitude and general climate toward America has improved significantly since he took office, but wouldn’t anybody be viewed as an improvement over old Deer-In-The-Headlights?
It’s clear that the Nobel Committee is sympathetic to a liberal agenda, which immediately depreciates the value of the award in conservative eyes. It’s not a coincidence that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel during the Bush administration. This was the third kick in the chins- and a very strong message indeed- when you consider he was probably nominated only a few days after he took office. Liberals are elated, but it does seem like a stretch to award the prize on the assumption of great expectations, rather than accomplishments.
Given that backdrop, is the Nobel a liability for the President? Clearly, it is. All his actions will be judged sardonically with a jaundiced eye from both sides of the political field. If he seeks peace, conservatives will accuse him of bowing to the international liberal elite. If he continues to wage war, liberals will shun him as a false prophet. He’ll probably stuff the award into the far reaches of his closet- behind his Boy Scout badges - pray that the public develops selective amnesia- and hope this doesn’t become endless fodder for conservative predators, nightly monologues and SNL skits. Good luck... I caught a snippet of Rush Limbaugh on Friday- he’s died and gone to heaven!
It’s clear that the Nobel Committee is sympathetic to a liberal agenda, which immediately depreciates the value of the award in conservative eyes. It’s not a coincidence that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel during the Bush administration. This was the third kick in the chins- and a very strong message indeed- when you consider he was probably nominated only a few days after he took office. Liberals are elated, but it does seem like a stretch to award the prize on the assumption of great expectations, rather than accomplishments.
Given that backdrop, is the Nobel a liability for the President? Clearly, it is. All his actions will be judged sardonically with a jaundiced eye from both sides of the political field. If he seeks peace, conservatives will accuse him of bowing to the international liberal elite. If he continues to wage war, liberals will shun him as a false prophet. He’ll probably stuff the award into the far reaches of his closet- behind his Boy Scout badges - pray that the public develops selective amnesia- and hope this doesn’t become endless fodder for conservative predators, nightly monologues and SNL skits. Good luck... I caught a snippet of Rush Limbaugh on Friday- he’s died and gone to heaven!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Is the Nobel Prize a Contradiction with the Dalai Lama?
I am as surprised as the rest of the world at President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace- and very pleased. It says a lot about how the world sees our President. It is truly a great accomplishment to even change the climate of the world toward America. His work is still ahead of him, but he’s made a substantial impact in the attitude of people throughout the world. That alone has renewed hope and optimism for a more peaceful and just future.
The latest buzz around the Dalai Lama would appear to be a contradiction with the goals of the Nobel Prize. But is it? The Robert Frost poem, “The Road Less Traveled”, comes to mind. The President is departing from the long standing, almost ritual act of meeting the Dalai Lama as a statement for human rights. Yet, the motivation in the past has been to use the meeting as political theater to rub China’s nose in their dirty laundry. Obviously, that strategy hasn’t worked. Tibet is still under full control of China. The President seems to be taking a new direction because he realizes that a photo op with the Dalai Lama would only infuriate the Chinese and do nothing to improve US-Tibet-China relations.
Like them or not, we buy most of our stuff from China today. We’re intertwined economically; while we remain at opposite poles politically. So why would he take this new direction, aside from the fact that the old direction was going nowhere? He sees the big picture, that’s why. If the President can endear himself to China, he may be able to use their investment in us as leverage to influence their domestic policies in the future. Someday that may even lead to a softer stand on Tibet. It’s at least worth a try.
If we can move from being just trading partners and become friends, other good things could happen. If we ever hope to develop a friendly relationship with China we have to refrain from embarrassing them in public- we don’t embarrass our friends in public- and this direction could pay dividends later. By taking the road less traveled, I think even the Dalai Lama sees the wisdom in his actions. What does he have to lose?
You can read more about the Dalai Lama and the Nobel Prize:
Obama and the Dalai Lama
Obama Gets Nobel Prize
The latest buzz around the Dalai Lama would appear to be a contradiction with the goals of the Nobel Prize. But is it? The Robert Frost poem, “The Road Less Traveled”, comes to mind. The President is departing from the long standing, almost ritual act of meeting the Dalai Lama as a statement for human rights. Yet, the motivation in the past has been to use the meeting as political theater to rub China’s nose in their dirty laundry. Obviously, that strategy hasn’t worked. Tibet is still under full control of China. The President seems to be taking a new direction because he realizes that a photo op with the Dalai Lama would only infuriate the Chinese and do nothing to improve US-Tibet-China relations.
Like them or not, we buy most of our stuff from China today. We’re intertwined economically; while we remain at opposite poles politically. So why would he take this new direction, aside from the fact that the old direction was going nowhere? He sees the big picture, that’s why. If the President can endear himself to China, he may be able to use their investment in us as leverage to influence their domestic policies in the future. Someday that may even lead to a softer stand on Tibet. It’s at least worth a try.
If we can move from being just trading partners and become friends, other good things could happen. If we ever hope to develop a friendly relationship with China we have to refrain from embarrassing them in public- we don’t embarrass our friends in public- and this direction could pay dividends later. By taking the road less traveled, I think even the Dalai Lama sees the wisdom in his actions. What does he have to lose?
You can read more about the Dalai Lama and the Nobel Prize:
Obama and the Dalai Lama
Obama Gets Nobel Prize
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Maybe I Have the President's Ear
Wow! I’m so impressed the President is taking my advice. All this time I thought it was Michelle he was listening to. (Maybe she shares my view) Here’s the latest on the Afghanistan strategy:
NY Times Article on Afghanistan Strategy
Seriously, it would appear that the administration may be leaning more toward Mr. Biden’s strategy:
a) Go after Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, not Afghanistan
b) The Taliban, while nasty people, are in fact indigenous to Afghanistan and will fight to regain control, but do not impose a direct threat to the U.S.
As Aristotle said, “Eureka!” They found it!
I’ll believe it, if and when it actually happens, but it’s encouraging that the administration is sending this- ah leak- possible trial balloon- out for reaction from the public. If they go forward with less emphasis on Afghanistan, and more on Al Qaeda, you can bet Senator McCain will go ballistic. He was mouthing off pretty good yesterday. We can thank our lucky stars that loose cannon is securely contained in the Senate Chamber, and not the Oval Office. General McChrystal won’t be a happy camper either.
I firmly believe the situation in Afghanistan is likely to dissipate if we turn our attention back to Al Qaeda. Who knows, the Taliban may even decide it’s in their best interest to reject Al Qaeda, and keep them out. The full brunt of our wrath rained down on them for eight years because of their ties prior to 9/11. Maybe they’ll wise up. Probably not- but if were the Taliban, I’d distance myself- and stick the business of regaining control of the country.
As for the people who say the Taliban are bad people worth fighting (that would be everyone in the administration except Joe Biden, and all the Republicans)- are they really worth American lives? As I’ve mentioned in previous postings, we have never fought a war on humanitarian grounds, and while it may be the virtuous thing to do, we would ultimately lose because we don’t have the stomach to wage an endless war to right a wrong. Besides, and I apologize for being sarcastic, if we set a precedent like that we’d have at least two dozen other countries (too many to mention) that would like us to do an extreme makeover in their countries. We’re just not all that magnanimous unless our interests are at stake- treaties, oil, Israel, or honor.
Now, if I can just get my good friend Barack to push through single payer health care, I’ll be convinced that I really do have his ear.
NY Times Article on Afghanistan Strategy
Seriously, it would appear that the administration may be leaning more toward Mr. Biden’s strategy:
a) Go after Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, not Afghanistan
b) The Taliban, while nasty people, are in fact indigenous to Afghanistan and will fight to regain control, but do not impose a direct threat to the U.S.
As Aristotle said, “Eureka!” They found it!
I’ll believe it, if and when it actually happens, but it’s encouraging that the administration is sending this- ah leak- possible trial balloon- out for reaction from the public. If they go forward with less emphasis on Afghanistan, and more on Al Qaeda, you can bet Senator McCain will go ballistic. He was mouthing off pretty good yesterday. We can thank our lucky stars that loose cannon is securely contained in the Senate Chamber, and not the Oval Office. General McChrystal won’t be a happy camper either.
I firmly believe the situation in Afghanistan is likely to dissipate if we turn our attention back to Al Qaeda. Who knows, the Taliban may even decide it’s in their best interest to reject Al Qaeda, and keep them out. The full brunt of our wrath rained down on them for eight years because of their ties prior to 9/11. Maybe they’ll wise up. Probably not- but if were the Taliban, I’d distance myself- and stick the business of regaining control of the country.
As for the people who say the Taliban are bad people worth fighting (that would be everyone in the administration except Joe Biden, and all the Republicans)- are they really worth American lives? As I’ve mentioned in previous postings, we have never fought a war on humanitarian grounds, and while it may be the virtuous thing to do, we would ultimately lose because we don’t have the stomach to wage an endless war to right a wrong. Besides, and I apologize for being sarcastic, if we set a precedent like that we’d have at least two dozen other countries (too many to mention) that would like us to do an extreme makeover in their countries. We’re just not all that magnanimous unless our interests are at stake- treaties, oil, Israel, or honor.
Now, if I can just get my good friend Barack to push through single payer health care, I’ll be convinced that I really do have his ear.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Is President Obama Walking That Lonely Road by Himself?
The Afghanistan War is eight years old today. It’s on it’s way to becoming the longest war in our history. All the dialogue coming out of Washington seems to indicate that we’ll be there for many more years- regardless if it’s more or less troops than we have there today. This is beginning to feel like Vietnam. How long are we in for, and how many American lives will we tolerate? President Obama is walking a lonely road right now- it’s his decision alone to make- it can not be a committee decision.
McGeorge Bundy, President Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, said that power in Washington lies with the personalities who exert the most influence over the President. If a President could be swayed, then it’s those people that have his ear who are most likely to get traction with their views- the people he trusts. President Kennedy was under a lot of pressure to escalate the war in Vietnam, as early as 1961. He resisted calls for increasing troop strength and kept a lid on the war. It wasn’t until 1965, that President Johnson ramped up Vietnam into a full-scale war.
History tells us that Robert Kennedy, McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara were the most influential people around JFK- they were friends and family. Bundy and McNamara were in favor of escalating the war. I don’t recall Bobby Kennedy’s position early on, but since he campaigned against the war in 1968, I imagine he would’ve advised against escalation. So Kennedy was not influenced by at least 2 of his closest friends- he stood alone and made his decision to not escalate the war.
Who are the people that have President Obama’s ear? And if they do, is he inclined to listen, or walk that lonely road by himself? I’d like to think the President is his own man, and he will make a decision on Afghanistan based on the information provided to him; not the recommendations of others. If he can be influenced, it’s hard to say who has the inside track today. Certainly it’s not Defense Secretary Gates, nor is it Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. Even Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is just a political acquaintance with ties to Illinois politics. General McChrystal and Admiral Mullen are providing valuable insight and data on how to win a war. But only the President can decide to escalate the war, or go in another direction. So if not these people, then who?
My guess it’s the First Lady. I think he’s weighing the information, listening carefully to his military advice, and not sleeping too well right now- confiding in the only close friend he has- trying to make the kind of decision Kennedy had to make so long ago.
McGeorge Bundy, President Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, said that power in Washington lies with the personalities who exert the most influence over the President. If a President could be swayed, then it’s those people that have his ear who are most likely to get traction with their views- the people he trusts. President Kennedy was under a lot of pressure to escalate the war in Vietnam, as early as 1961. He resisted calls for increasing troop strength and kept a lid on the war. It wasn’t until 1965, that President Johnson ramped up Vietnam into a full-scale war.
History tells us that Robert Kennedy, McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara were the most influential people around JFK- they were friends and family. Bundy and McNamara were in favor of escalating the war. I don’t recall Bobby Kennedy’s position early on, but since he campaigned against the war in 1968, I imagine he would’ve advised against escalation. So Kennedy was not influenced by at least 2 of his closest friends- he stood alone and made his decision to not escalate the war.
Who are the people that have President Obama’s ear? And if they do, is he inclined to listen, or walk that lonely road by himself? I’d like to think the President is his own man, and he will make a decision on Afghanistan based on the information provided to him; not the recommendations of others. If he can be influenced, it’s hard to say who has the inside track today. Certainly it’s not Defense Secretary Gates, nor is it Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. Even Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is just a political acquaintance with ties to Illinois politics. General McChrystal and Admiral Mullen are providing valuable insight and data on how to win a war. But only the President can decide to escalate the war, or go in another direction. So if not these people, then who?
My guess it’s the First Lady. I think he’s weighing the information, listening carefully to his military advice, and not sleeping too well right now- confiding in the only close friend he has- trying to make the kind of decision Kennedy had to make so long ago.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Birds of a Feather Fly Left or Right…
Broadwing Hawks migrate from all over North America to Ecuador. They all converge over south Texas by the thousands within a one to two week window in route to Ecuador. Amazing!
We humans don't migrate, but we flock together. Our intelligence even enables us to seek out like-minded people. It’s interesting how we steer away from people with views and ideologies we don’t like, and cling to those we do like. My son described the way a man might look for a town to live in. (I’m embellishing it a little.) He would bypass a gated community. When he saw automatic lawn sprinklers and monogenetic grass, with neatly trimmed garden shrubs piled high with new bark mulch, with new SUVs in the driveway, he kept driving.
When he started to see older, smaller foreign cars, a dandelion or two in the grass, a veggie garden in view, and even the glimpse of a clothes line in a side or back yard, then he knew he had arrived to place of like minded people. He felt comfort in seeing people and places he could relate to. We unconsciously seek comfort with things that are familiar to us, and we may even assume those people share our core values, or at least a plurality of common core values.
We see it in politics and religion the most. I don’t think anyone would get up on Sunday morning and ask the family, “Where would you like to go to church today?” It’s already decided. You know where like-minded people are and that’s where you want to be. In politics, it’s as simple as choosing to watch Fox News vs Bill Moyer’s Journal, or listening to Amy Goodman vs Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Their voices reinforce our core values. We silently nod in agreement as we listen to what they say.
Does flocking together serve to increase our sense of righteousness about our beliefs? Probably. Tom and Ray of NPR’s “Car Talk” once said two people who know absolutely nothing about a subject could convince each other they have the right solution to a problem as long as they agree. We’re all preaching to our own choirs- reinforcing our own convictions. Do we ever pull people from one side of the ideological spectrum to the other? I think not.
We humans don't migrate, but we flock together. Our intelligence even enables us to seek out like-minded people. It’s interesting how we steer away from people with views and ideologies we don’t like, and cling to those we do like. My son described the way a man might look for a town to live in. (I’m embellishing it a little.) He would bypass a gated community. When he saw automatic lawn sprinklers and monogenetic grass, with neatly trimmed garden shrubs piled high with new bark mulch, with new SUVs in the driveway, he kept driving.
When he started to see older, smaller foreign cars, a dandelion or two in the grass, a veggie garden in view, and even the glimpse of a clothes line in a side or back yard, then he knew he had arrived to place of like minded people. He felt comfort in seeing people and places he could relate to. We unconsciously seek comfort with things that are familiar to us, and we may even assume those people share our core values, or at least a plurality of common core values.
We see it in politics and religion the most. I don’t think anyone would get up on Sunday morning and ask the family, “Where would you like to go to church today?” It’s already decided. You know where like-minded people are and that’s where you want to be. In politics, it’s as simple as choosing to watch Fox News vs Bill Moyer’s Journal, or listening to Amy Goodman vs Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Their voices reinforce our core values. We silently nod in agreement as we listen to what they say.
Does flocking together serve to increase our sense of righteousness about our beliefs? Probably. Tom and Ray of NPR’s “Car Talk” once said two people who know absolutely nothing about a subject could convince each other they have the right solution to a problem as long as they agree. We’re all preaching to our own choirs- reinforcing our own convictions. Do we ever pull people from one side of the ideological spectrum to the other? I think not.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Is “ Die Quickly” Equal to “You Lie”?
Are they equally inappropriate? Some people may say yes. I say no. The truth may be ugly, but false assertions are uglier. Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida refused to apologize to Republicans after criticism from Republicans for his comments on the floor of the House that the Republicans’ healthcare plan is people should “die quickly.”
He was highlighting the fact that Republicans have no plan for health reform. They haven’t offered a plan that departs from the status quo. It is the status quo. His plea was a wake up call to people who think the Republicans have a better plan than the proposed reforms- what’s left of it. No reform is not reform.
Here’s what he said that caused all the stir from the rightous right:
Using flip charts (Ross Perot style) to underline his point, Grayson pointed out that Republicans know their do nothing plan won’t work so they "have a backup plan in case you do get sick…If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly," he said. "That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."
The Republicans demanded an apology- to that he said:
Rep. Alan Grayson: “I would like to apologize to the dead, and here’s why. According to this study, ‘Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,’ which was published two weeks ago, 44,789 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance…Let’s remember that we should care about people even after they’re born. So I call upon the Democratic members of the House, I call upon the Republican members of the House, I call upon all of us, to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”
Representative Grayson gets a tip of the hat for being outspoken, accurate, and holding his ground. He could have chosen his words better, and he could have been more gracious, but he made the point. I hope he doesn’t become the next vulnerable Democrat to be culled from the herd by the predator conservatives.
He was highlighting the fact that Republicans have no plan for health reform. They haven’t offered a plan that departs from the status quo. It is the status quo. His plea was a wake up call to people who think the Republicans have a better plan than the proposed reforms- what’s left of it. No reform is not reform.
Here’s what he said that caused all the stir from the rightous right:
Using flip charts (Ross Perot style) to underline his point, Grayson pointed out that Republicans know their do nothing plan won’t work so they "have a backup plan in case you do get sick…If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly," he said. "That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."
The Republicans demanded an apology- to that he said:
Rep. Alan Grayson: “I would like to apologize to the dead, and here’s why. According to this study, ‘Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,’ which was published two weeks ago, 44,789 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance…Let’s remember that we should care about people even after they’re born. So I call upon the Democratic members of the House, I call upon the Republican members of the House, I call upon all of us, to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”
Representative Grayson gets a tip of the hat for being outspoken, accurate, and holding his ground. He could have chosen his words better, and he could have been more gracious, but he made the point. I hope he doesn’t become the next vulnerable Democrat to be culled from the herd by the predator conservatives.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Do Predator Conservatives Make Healthier Democrats?
Ken Burns “National Parks” documentary had an interesting segment about wolves. As a young biologist, Adolph Murie, dedicated much of his life to studying wildlife, and wolves in particular. He had a theory that wolves and other predators should not be hunted into extinction. His studies showed that predators actually improve the health and population of the prey in the wild. This came at a time when they were all shot on sight, anywhere. He argued that predators should left alone; they should be allowed to live their lives, nature would take care of itself, and be better in the process.
His studies showed that wolves only preyed on the vulnerable animals- the old, and sick or very young unprotected animals. As a result, they performed a natural culling of the herds that strengthened and developed a stronger population. He was very unpopular for having this view. Even the Park Service he worked for was very opposed to his ideas- even hated him because of it. Some fifty years later, the Park Service released the first Gray Wolves back into Yellowstone, ultimately concluding that his theory was correct. President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his life's work.
If predators cull out the vulnerable, and the result is a healthier flock, is it possible that this works in politics too? If the predator conservative talk/news hosts cull out the vulnerable and weaker Democrats, are they actually helping the party by making it leaner, stronger and healthier too?
Think about it. Some Democrats are well intentioned, but they may inhibit achievement of the party’s goals, either by distraction, because of their firebrand spirit, or by lapses of judgment. They’re actions make them predator targets, and divert people’s attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. People and organizations like Van Jones, Wright, Daschle, Richardson, Edwards, and ACORN have been systematically culled from the herd by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Co.
While Democrats hate this predator action, they may be doing the Democrats more good than harm in the process- actually cultivating a stronger Democratic Party. If these Democrats stayed around, they would suffer prolonged attacks, sapping the life out of the party, turning away centrists, and inhibiting the ability to make progress toward priority goals.
The converse may also be true, at least it's an interesting thought- if the Democrats don’t apply predator tactics on the vulnerable Republicans like: Palin, Sanford, Wilson, etc, does the absence of culling out their herd weaken the party? I think it does. They stay around and sap the energy out their party too. It diverts the Republicans from staying on their message of- no.
His studies showed that wolves only preyed on the vulnerable animals- the old, and sick or very young unprotected animals. As a result, they performed a natural culling of the herds that strengthened and developed a stronger population. He was very unpopular for having this view. Even the Park Service he worked for was very opposed to his ideas- even hated him because of it. Some fifty years later, the Park Service released the first Gray Wolves back into Yellowstone, ultimately concluding that his theory was correct. President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his life's work.
If predators cull out the vulnerable, and the result is a healthier flock, is it possible that this works in politics too? If the predator conservative talk/news hosts cull out the vulnerable and weaker Democrats, are they actually helping the party by making it leaner, stronger and healthier too?
Think about it. Some Democrats are well intentioned, but they may inhibit achievement of the party’s goals, either by distraction, because of their firebrand spirit, or by lapses of judgment. They’re actions make them predator targets, and divert people’s attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. People and organizations like Van Jones, Wright, Daschle, Richardson, Edwards, and ACORN have been systematically culled from the herd by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Co.
While Democrats hate this predator action, they may be doing the Democrats more good than harm in the process- actually cultivating a stronger Democratic Party. If these Democrats stayed around, they would suffer prolonged attacks, sapping the life out of the party, turning away centrists, and inhibiting the ability to make progress toward priority goals.
The converse may also be true, at least it's an interesting thought- if the Democrats don’t apply predator tactics on the vulnerable Republicans like: Palin, Sanford, Wilson, etc, does the absence of culling out their herd weaken the party? I think it does. They stay around and sap the energy out their party too. It diverts the Republicans from staying on their message of- no.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
With Iran, the Devil’s in the Nuance- Not the Details
The dialogue is beginning to sound like a wary buyer and a used car salesman. President Obama demanded talks with Iran without pre-conditions. He got it. He demanded inspection of the Qom facility in two weeks. He appears to be getting that too. They offered to meet again in late October- another olive branch? And without any provocation, Iran mentioned they might throw in shipping low-grade enriched Uranium to Russia or France for processing- at no extra cost…. Of course 24 hours later they clarified their offer, and said it hasn’t been discussed yet- meaning it was what, a trial balloon?
Are they telling us what we want to hear to keep us on the lot, while they buy time to negotiate the best deal they can? Sure they are. They’ll say just about anything to prevent new trade sanctions from being imposed- especially if Russia and China should join in. The country has suffered from sanctions much more than they will ever admit. Having Russia or China join in would be far too painful to endure- the medical equivalent of back-to-back root canals.
The overtures from Iran were a pleasant surprise and unexpected- a departure from their steady anti-western rhetoric. However, it’s too early for victory laps. We should view any concessions they offer with suspicion until we’ve actually driven the car off the lot, and we are sure we have what we went after- the cork securely jammed back in the bottle that holds atomic bombs.
Here are some good articles on the subject:
Common Dreams Article
NY Times Article
Are they telling us what we want to hear to keep us on the lot, while they buy time to negotiate the best deal they can? Sure they are. They’ll say just about anything to prevent new trade sanctions from being imposed- especially if Russia and China should join in. The country has suffered from sanctions much more than they will ever admit. Having Russia or China join in would be far too painful to endure- the medical equivalent of back-to-back root canals.
The overtures from Iran were a pleasant surprise and unexpected- a departure from their steady anti-western rhetoric. However, it’s too early for victory laps. We should view any concessions they offer with suspicion until we’ve actually driven the car off the lot, and we are sure we have what we went after- the cork securely jammed back in the bottle that holds atomic bombs.
Here are some good articles on the subject:
Common Dreams Article
NY Times Article
Friday, October 2, 2009
My Granddaughter Stole My Heart!
On October 1st, our Granddaughter Madelyn turned 4 months old. We’ve been fortunate to have Madelyn as our day guest in August and September. Today is the last day we’ll have her with us on weekdays. Next week she begins a new adventure at an in-home day care for infants. I already miss her. She has the biggest smile. Her blue eyes glow when she looks at you. She gives you a knowing stare- I’m sure she’s trying to understand everything we say.
Everyday she grows bigger and shows off new talents. Yesterday she drank a bottle by herself… holding on to it tightly with her perfect little hands until it was gone. Her Grandma took her to visit her Great Grandmother, Gringa, while my nephew David is fixing up our kitchen. (He does great work, by the way.)
She’s a little gift of joy- and aren’t they all? Now I know why my friends all spoil their grandchildren! She spreads joy and happiness wherever she goes. Two days ago she visited another Great Grandma- my Mom. She didn’t recognize her, and even at 4 months, she’s becoming very aware of her surroundings. She was uncomfortable at first, but she was tired- we all understood. She burst into smiles when Daddy came.
Her vocabulary is growing daily. She has a wide array of sounds that blurt out spontaneously. They’re not real words. They’re her words. She’s telling us something all the time. Someday soon we’ll begin to understand what she’s trying to tell us all day. I can’t wait.
She recognizes nursery rhymes, and reacts with wide-eyed joy at surprises- like “pop goes the weasel”. I can’t wait until she talks, so we can tell her stories, and she can tell us stories; and take her to exciting places, and be a part of her growing up. Oh, the joy of having a granddaughter! Thursday, October 1, 2009
Great Smoky Mountain National Park- Another Struggle Against Profiteering
To follow-up on the posting of yesterday, I watched the latest airing of the “National Parks” last night. It was interesting to learn that when Congress approved the idea of a Smoky Mountain National Park in 1923, they did it with a compromise that opponents fully expected would kill the deal. Congress didn’t appropriate any money to purchase private land. They stipulated a minimum of 10 million dollars to be allocated to purchase private lands, and stipulated a minimum of 300,000 acres to be purchased to establish the park. North Carolina and Tennessee had to come up with the money. Each state contributed 2 million dollars. Private donations contributed another 1 million. Coincidentally, another Rockefeller is in this story- John D. Rockefeller Jr.- stepped in and donated the remaining 5 million.
Big logging companies owned most of the land. Anticipating a buy-out, the private timber companies logged the old growth forest, in a frenzy, clear cutting 50 acres a day. In effect, they raped the land for all it was worth, before they sold it.
And so it goes, the free enterprise system was able to profit from the timber, and profit a second time when they sold the land to a willing buyer- a buyer who was desperately trying to save the land as it was being destroyed. The park wasn’t dedicated until 1940.
Today, except for the old growth that's gone forever, the park has healed. The park has 10 million visitors a year, and brings pleasure to all who visit, and economic benefit to the surrounding area. Perseverance won out in the end, and America is better for having a park for everyone to enjoy.
And so it goes, the free enterprise system was able to profit from the timber, and profit a second time when they sold the land to a willing buyer- a buyer who was desperately trying to save the land as it was being destroyed. The park wasn’t dedicated until 1940.
Today, except for the old growth that's gone forever, the park has healed. The park has 10 million visitors a year, and brings pleasure to all who visit, and economic benefit to the surrounding area. Perseverance won out in the end, and America is better for having a park for everyone to enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
