OK. I’m going to steal the President’s thunder and tell you what good old middle of the road Barack is going to say. Tuesday evening he will address the nation and disclose his War strategy-policy-appeasement, and we’ll be reassured that this is a good war, a war of necessity, and we’ll be safer tomorrow and for generations to come as a result of this much needed offensive. He plans to phase-in another 30,000 troops over the next six months and he’s seeking an additional 6,000 troops from coalition countries.
The focus of the war will be three fold:
1. Continue to Train Afghans to build an effective fighting and policing force and ensure a strong Afghan Government.
2. With the support of other countries assist the Afghans to re-establish a peaceful, civilian infrastructure.
3. Support the defense of the Government held territory and launch an offensive to root out the Taliban strongholds and ensure that the Taliban will not be able to regain control of the country.
The President will ensure us that this is a bipartisan supported strategy- if he can manage to get some Democrats to support him. Not one dime is covered by revenue for the cost of the war. The war is being waged using the Uncle Sam Credit Card- something both parties seem very happy to do. Even though some politicians are calling for a War Tax, he will not bring that subject up. We will fund this war by going further into debt.
The exit strategy will be adaptive (read that to mean results oriented with no timetable), based on metrics that indicate the strength of the Afghan Government forces and the surrender of territory by the Taliban. He will tell us we will not be out of Afghanistan by the end of his first term in office, but we’ll be leaning in that direction. We’ll most likely be in Afghanistan another 6-10 years, but he won’t mention that and he will not give a timetable for withdrawal (something he learned from his predecessor).
He’ll assure India and Pakistan that our actions in Afghanistan will ensure a more stable, terrorist free region, and they will be direct beneficiaries of our actions. Because they are potential adversaries, the President will perform a shotgun wedding and open a dialogue with India and Pakistan to initiate a new alliance to ensure the stability of the region.
That’s about all. Oh, I almost forgot- we started this war to root out Al Qaeda. None of this effort will accomplish that. They’re in Pakistan. We’ll continue to fight a CIA war in Pakistan and he won’t say much about that. He will make vague references to continuing the pursuit of Al Qaeda where ever they are in seeking justice for the terrorist acts on 9/11, and he’ll ask for God to bless America in our endeavors- an American jihad?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Black Friday for Shops- Red Friday for Shoppers
All the talk about the next thirty days being do or die for the shops to crawl out of the recession and return seems like another trip to the casino. We, the shoppers will go into the red so the shops can go into the black. What’s so good about that?
We all spend too much money buying gifts for our friends and family- often paying more than they would pay if they actually wanted that particular item- and we artificially pump up the economy by spending our money less wisely against a deadline to check off the list and be done by 12/25. The result is billions of dollars are poured into the economy by the banks, because practically everyone uses credit cards and personal debt skyrockets instead of paying down our credit card bills. We run around like a bunch of drunken sailors spending money we don’t have for the next thirty days. Instead of strengthening our economy we’re increasing our personal debt and sliding back into the bad habits that got into the world’s greatest recession.
Think about what would happen if everyone pledged to spend only the money they have, instead of buying everything on credit cards. We’d spend a lot less, everyone would get something, the thoughtfulness would still be conveyed, and on December 26th no one would be in more debt than they were on Thanksgiving.
People who take the time to find a thoughtful gift that’s within their means have to work a lot harder. It’s easy to impress people with an expensive gift, but much harder if you stay within your means. We have to shop and shop, fight crowds and traffic to hunt down that perfect, yet affordable gift.
We could make more of our gifts. We all talk about doing this, but time and other conflicts seem to get in the way.You might bake, knit, make a craft, paint… Who doesn’t treasure a labor of love, made just for you, by someone who was thinking of you the whole time they made it. I received a beautiful homemade cribbage board and some other very thoughtful homemade gifts over the years. They’re my most treasured gifts.
As we claw our way out of the recession wouldn’t it be comforting to say no to more debt, let the stores stay in the red, and really get ourselves into the black and enjoy the holidays?
We all spend too much money buying gifts for our friends and family- often paying more than they would pay if they actually wanted that particular item- and we artificially pump up the economy by spending our money less wisely against a deadline to check off the list and be done by 12/25. The result is billions of dollars are poured into the economy by the banks, because practically everyone uses credit cards and personal debt skyrockets instead of paying down our credit card bills. We run around like a bunch of drunken sailors spending money we don’t have for the next thirty days. Instead of strengthening our economy we’re increasing our personal debt and sliding back into the bad habits that got into the world’s greatest recession.
Think about what would happen if everyone pledged to spend only the money they have, instead of buying everything on credit cards. We’d spend a lot less, everyone would get something, the thoughtfulness would still be conveyed, and on December 26th no one would be in more debt than they were on Thanksgiving.
People who take the time to find a thoughtful gift that’s within their means have to work a lot harder. It’s easy to impress people with an expensive gift, but much harder if you stay within your means. We have to shop and shop, fight crowds and traffic to hunt down that perfect, yet affordable gift.
We could make more of our gifts. We all talk about doing this, but time and other conflicts seem to get in the way.You might bake, knit, make a craft, paint… Who doesn’t treasure a labor of love, made just for you, by someone who was thinking of you the whole time they made it. I received a beautiful homemade cribbage board and some other very thoughtful homemade gifts over the years. They’re my most treasured gifts.
As we claw our way out of the recession wouldn’t it be comforting to say no to more debt, let the stores stay in the red, and really get ourselves into the black and enjoy the holidays?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
An Old Friend Gave Me Sage Advice
Recently I received an email, one of those mass forwarded –spam from friends- you gotta read this- we all get almost everyday. Bear in mind that he’s retired and on Medicare like everyone over 65. The email included a link to a Youtube video. Senator Rogers of Minnesota was speaking in the Senate against the proposed health care reform bill. Ok. I gave it a listen. I smelled a rat becasue the title of the email said “See this before they remove it” – whoever “they” is- as if a Senate debate could possibly be censored and this was some piece of clandestine video smuggled out of the Senate. Senator Roger’s main point was 85% of Americans have insurance today and they’re happy with it. Only 15% don’t have insurance.
He goes on to say Uncle Sam wants to “punish” the 85% who have it to cover the 15% that don’t. He didn't elaborate what "punish" really meant either, other than "you'll pay more". Also notice how 15% sounds so much less significant than 45 million people. He goes on to say 10 million of those people don’t want insurance, as if that makes everything ok. I’m sure we’d all like to not have insurance on our cars, but we accept that mandate, and have for so long people don’t even equate the two.
The closest the Senator comes to offering an alternate is a broad statement, that we should “let” the insurance industry “innovate”, whatever that means… It’s the American basis for our free enterprise system that we’re founded on, and further more get the government out of our private lives. That always brings tears to the eyes of conservatives.
Well, I couldn’t let this spam mail go unanswered, so I sent a reply to my old friend explaining that I’m a Democrat and very much in favor of health care reform. I pointed out, quite factually, that all Republican Administrations have done nothing to address health reform, because they pretty much like the status quo. I brought up the fact that the Republicans don’t have an alternate plan that addresses the issues. Their plans are cheaper because the uninsured are still left uninsured. I also pointed out that 45,000 uninsured Americans die every year because they don’t receive the attention of doctors and their health deteriorates more than insured people. And finally, since he’s on Medicare, I pointed out that most people on Medicare are very happy with it, so the Government can’t be all that bad.
He replied to my email with a preamble that he doesn’t usually respond to these emails, but this time he couldn’t help himself. He told me nothing I said was true. He said the Republicans have a plan that costs 10% of the Democrat’s plan. And if I don’t believe him I should watch Glenn Beck on Fox News because that’s where he gets his facts and he can be trusted.
I replied one last time saying I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s views, but I hoped we would stay friends. He went back to Fox News and I turned on Rachel Maddow feeling quite depressed about the whole thing.
He goes on to say Uncle Sam wants to “punish” the 85% who have it to cover the 15% that don’t. He didn't elaborate what "punish" really meant either, other than "you'll pay more". Also notice how 15% sounds so much less significant than 45 million people. He goes on to say 10 million of those people don’t want insurance, as if that makes everything ok. I’m sure we’d all like to not have insurance on our cars, but we accept that mandate, and have for so long people don’t even equate the two.
The closest the Senator comes to offering an alternate is a broad statement, that we should “let” the insurance industry “innovate”, whatever that means… It’s the American basis for our free enterprise system that we’re founded on, and further more get the government out of our private lives. That always brings tears to the eyes of conservatives.
Well, I couldn’t let this spam mail go unanswered, so I sent a reply to my old friend explaining that I’m a Democrat and very much in favor of health care reform. I pointed out, quite factually, that all Republican Administrations have done nothing to address health reform, because they pretty much like the status quo. I brought up the fact that the Republicans don’t have an alternate plan that addresses the issues. Their plans are cheaper because the uninsured are still left uninsured. I also pointed out that 45,000 uninsured Americans die every year because they don’t receive the attention of doctors and their health deteriorates more than insured people. And finally, since he’s on Medicare, I pointed out that most people on Medicare are very happy with it, so the Government can’t be all that bad.
He replied to my email with a preamble that he doesn’t usually respond to these emails, but this time he couldn’t help himself. He told me nothing I said was true. He said the Republicans have a plan that costs 10% of the Democrat’s plan. And if I don’t believe him I should watch Glenn Beck on Fox News because that’s where he gets his facts and he can be trusted.
I replied one last time saying I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s views, but I hoped we would stay friends. He went back to Fox News and I turned on Rachel Maddow feeling quite depressed about the whole thing.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Origin of the Species- 150 Years Old Today
Charles Darwin went rogue on us 150 years ago today. The book was less controversial then than today. When the book was published, well to-do and educated people were the only readers. The notion of survival of the fittest played right into the egos of the British aristocracy, who already thought they were superior, and the book reaffirmed what they believed to be true. The sun never set on the British Empire. Now that they’re no longer the world’s reigning power I wonder if they still feel the same about the book.
Today everybody hears news and commentary, even if they’re illiterate, but they know what they hear, and they believe what they hear. Few people read. Fewer do research through reading. We depend on the professionals to do that for us. We don’t have the time to get to the bottom of every issue. Somehow they do, or they have a staff that does the research for them, and they hear the bottom line and pass it on to us to hear. Facts tend to get in the way, so the story is usually filtered to reinforce their view. People hear the information from a source they respect, and believe it, or want to believe it, or peer pressure helps them believe it.
Forty-two percent of the people in America think the world is 4000 years old. That’s 126 million people. That’s incredible. I have a hard time believing that fact, if it is a fact. Let’s pretend the statistic is over rated by a factor of four. So maybe only ten percent of the Americans really believe the world is 4000 years old. That’s still 30 million or so people. That’s still incredible.
And we wonder why people believe that government regulation is bad, and gun control is bad, and government run health care is bad, and social security is bad, and Medicare is bad, and sending our troops to die in a foreign land with no defined mission is good.
Today everybody hears news and commentary, even if they’re illiterate, but they know what they hear, and they believe what they hear. Few people read. Fewer do research through reading. We depend on the professionals to do that for us. We don’t have the time to get to the bottom of every issue. Somehow they do, or they have a staff that does the research for them, and they hear the bottom line and pass it on to us to hear. Facts tend to get in the way, so the story is usually filtered to reinforce their view. People hear the information from a source they respect, and believe it, or want to believe it, or peer pressure helps them believe it.
Forty-two percent of the people in America think the world is 4000 years old. That’s 126 million people. That’s incredible. I have a hard time believing that fact, if it is a fact. Let’s pretend the statistic is over rated by a factor of four. So maybe only ten percent of the Americans really believe the world is 4000 years old. That’s still 30 million or so people. That’s still incredible.
And we wonder why people believe that government regulation is bad, and gun control is bad, and government run health care is bad, and social security is bad, and Medicare is bad, and sending our troops to die in a foreign land with no defined mission is good.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sustainability- It’s More Than Food
You’re not “in” today unless you profess to eat everything within 50 miles of home. The theory being local farms are greener and healthier. The only problem with that in the winter in New Hampshire we’re pretty much limited to snow cones. Granted, in the growing season we have a bountiful harvest, but how do we sustain ourselves for the other nine or ten months of the year? It kills me to see our supermarkets selling potatoes from California when Maine is next-door, or anything from afar except oranges, coffee and bananas for that matter.
Some people say freeze your foods, but that’s not being “green”. That freezer has a huge carbon footprint. We could can goods. That makes sense. It takes time though- something we all lack in this multi-tasking, fast paced, GPS everywhere, text-everyone life we’ve built for ourselves. OK. I could do it. I’m retired. Maybe I’ll open a “Can Your Own Goods” shop. I could provide the apparatus and facility; you bring the food and kids and make a day of it. Or better yet, maybe I could get the school to open the kitchen in the summer for the residents to use. I could just be the supervisor. I’ll look into that.
Maybe we should not be so focused on food. Living sustainably is actually much more than food. Few people actually grow and raise food for a living even if they’d like to. Sustainability should go way beyond food and include any product, service or institution within the local area. Catering to the people in your area develops closer community relationships, supports their business, and enables them to have a viable business without reaching beyond the local area. It keeps their carbon footprint down, while you do the same. You make new friends too.
I buy all my bark mulch, gravel, and such from my neighbor a mile from my house. He waives the delivery charge, I get a deal, and he stays in business. When my septic system needed to be replaced I went to an in-town contractor. Lisbon, NH used to have Chevy Dealer. He went out of business several years ago, but before he did you would’ve been impressed by the local loyalty. I think everyone in town (all 500 of them) drove a Chevy. There just weren’t enough people to keep in him in business, but they had the right idea.
So think about sustainability the next time you get your hair done, need your house painted, do landscaping, need the driveway paved or sealed, need a new roof, need a new well pump, or have your snow plowed- anything really... Go to your local hardware or paint store instead of Home Depot, Walmart or Lowes. They get to know you and they appreciate your business, and you build a more sustainable community.
I knew a lawyer in town that epitomized this ethic. He would barter for most of the local services if he could. He’d trade a new roof for a divorce, or a new transmission for a will, etc… Pretty cool. Unfortunately his brother invented those Ninja Turtles and he had to go be a corporate attorney in some other place. I hope he’s still bartering though.
Some people say freeze your foods, but that’s not being “green”. That freezer has a huge carbon footprint. We could can goods. That makes sense. It takes time though- something we all lack in this multi-tasking, fast paced, GPS everywhere, text-everyone life we’ve built for ourselves. OK. I could do it. I’m retired. Maybe I’ll open a “Can Your Own Goods” shop. I could provide the apparatus and facility; you bring the food and kids and make a day of it. Or better yet, maybe I could get the school to open the kitchen in the summer for the residents to use. I could just be the supervisor. I’ll look into that.
Maybe we should not be so focused on food. Living sustainably is actually much more than food. Few people actually grow and raise food for a living even if they’d like to. Sustainability should go way beyond food and include any product, service or institution within the local area. Catering to the people in your area develops closer community relationships, supports their business, and enables them to have a viable business without reaching beyond the local area. It keeps their carbon footprint down, while you do the same. You make new friends too.
I buy all my bark mulch, gravel, and such from my neighbor a mile from my house. He waives the delivery charge, I get a deal, and he stays in business. When my septic system needed to be replaced I went to an in-town contractor. Lisbon, NH used to have Chevy Dealer. He went out of business several years ago, but before he did you would’ve been impressed by the local loyalty. I think everyone in town (all 500 of them) drove a Chevy. There just weren’t enough people to keep in him in business, but they had the right idea.
So think about sustainability the next time you get your hair done, need your house painted, do landscaping, need the driveway paved or sealed, need a new roof, need a new well pump, or have your snow plowed- anything really... Go to your local hardware or paint store instead of Home Depot, Walmart or Lowes. They get to know you and they appreciate your business, and you build a more sustainable community.
I knew a lawyer in town that epitomized this ethic. He would barter for most of the local services if he could. He’d trade a new roof for a divorce, or a new transmission for a will, etc… Pretty cool. Unfortunately his brother invented those Ninja Turtles and he had to go be a corporate attorney in some other place. I hope he’s still bartering though.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Remembering JFK
On this day forty-six years ago I was in my Geometry class when the teacher was called out of the room. She returned a minute later with tears in her eyes and told us the President had been shot. I couldn’t believe it. The world sank into a surreal state of shock. We went into several days of national mourning. Nothing happened. No school. No work. Nothing. It was as if the country wasn’t sure what to do next. The funeral capped days of sadness. The horse drawn casket lumbered from the Capital to Arlington Cemetery. We all watched John-John salute his dad.
Even with the Cold War, life was rather light hearted, and people were excited about the direction the President was taking us. He declared a New Frontier. We were going to the moon. He started the Peace Corps, VISTA, and many other programs. Everyone was obligated to figure out what they could do for their country as he had challenged us in his inauguration speech. That day, it all seemed to grind to a halt.
President Kennedy was well liked, but he had enemies too. He wasn’t popular in the south. There were the Limbaughs of the time, the John Birch Society, and many right wing hate groups. They tried to put him down, but they didn’t get much traction. They couldn’t overcome his charisma. Opponents claimed he would put his Catholic religion before the interests of the country, called his father a bootlegger and gangster, accused Jacqueline of being more partial to France and everything French than America, and proclaimed him too soft on Communism. Conservatives claimed sole ownership of patriotism during the Cold War, even more so than today. Any ideaology left of center was viewed as potentially subversive. He was accused of taking us down the road to Socialism- even though he hadn’t passed any landmark legislation- that came after his death.
I remember his television debate with Richard Nixon. Nixon didn’t look good on black and white TV- he looked dour and sinister. TV must have been a window into his soul- an omen of things to come. His makeup was poorly done. He was noticeably uneasy with the new format for campaigning. In contrast, Kennedy looked young, relaxed, and happy to be there. Neither candidate had to say a word. JFK won the debate by his demeanor. I remember it so clearly because I was more conservative than liberal at the time, and my guy blew it.
His inaugural speech rallied America. I remember watching him. I remember watching Robert Frost, a very frail man of 86, struggling to read his poem that he wrote for the occasion on that cold, blustery day in January. His papers wouldn’t lie flat and he couldn’t read the poem, so he recited another poem from memory instead. I felt sorry for him. He was too old to be out in that weather. I don’t think an army could’ve kept him away though. He died two years later.
Later, I had an opportunity to participate in an oratory contest at school. I recited President Kennedy’s inaugural address. A local nun was one of the judges. I remember looking at her while I recited the address; she had tears in her eyes and was beaming at me at the same time. I knew I had her vote.
We had barely recovered from the Cuban Missile Crisis the year before. Racism was still running full tilt in the south, with lynchings, murders of civil rights workers, segregation, and all the Jim Crowe laws that denied African Americans their rights and freedoms. Jack Kennedy wasn’t powerful enough to tackle those issues. After all, he was a junior Senator when he ran for President (sound familiar?), and had little political capital to work with. His tragic death did create a tidal wave of good will that enabled civil rights and Medicare legislation. Lyndon Johnson spent all of his political capital pushing those landmark bills through Congress. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would’ve been very happy.
Rest in peace Mr. President.
Even with the Cold War, life was rather light hearted, and people were excited about the direction the President was taking us. He declared a New Frontier. We were going to the moon. He started the Peace Corps, VISTA, and many other programs. Everyone was obligated to figure out what they could do for their country as he had challenged us in his inauguration speech. That day, it all seemed to grind to a halt.
President Kennedy was well liked, but he had enemies too. He wasn’t popular in the south. There were the Limbaughs of the time, the John Birch Society, and many right wing hate groups. They tried to put him down, but they didn’t get much traction. They couldn’t overcome his charisma. Opponents claimed he would put his Catholic religion before the interests of the country, called his father a bootlegger and gangster, accused Jacqueline of being more partial to France and everything French than America, and proclaimed him too soft on Communism. Conservatives claimed sole ownership of patriotism during the Cold War, even more so than today. Any ideaology left of center was viewed as potentially subversive. He was accused of taking us down the road to Socialism- even though he hadn’t passed any landmark legislation- that came after his death.
I remember his television debate with Richard Nixon. Nixon didn’t look good on black and white TV- he looked dour and sinister. TV must have been a window into his soul- an omen of things to come. His makeup was poorly done. He was noticeably uneasy with the new format for campaigning. In contrast, Kennedy looked young, relaxed, and happy to be there. Neither candidate had to say a word. JFK won the debate by his demeanor. I remember it so clearly because I was more conservative than liberal at the time, and my guy blew it.
His inaugural speech rallied America. I remember watching him. I remember watching Robert Frost, a very frail man of 86, struggling to read his poem that he wrote for the occasion on that cold, blustery day in January. His papers wouldn’t lie flat and he couldn’t read the poem, so he recited another poem from memory instead. I felt sorry for him. He was too old to be out in that weather. I don’t think an army could’ve kept him away though. He died two years later.
Later, I had an opportunity to participate in an oratory contest at school. I recited President Kennedy’s inaugural address. A local nun was one of the judges. I remember looking at her while I recited the address; she had tears in her eyes and was beaming at me at the same time. I knew I had her vote.
We had barely recovered from the Cuban Missile Crisis the year before. Racism was still running full tilt in the south, with lynchings, murders of civil rights workers, segregation, and all the Jim Crowe laws that denied African Americans their rights and freedoms. Jack Kennedy wasn’t powerful enough to tackle those issues. After all, he was a junior Senator when he ran for President (sound familiar?), and had little political capital to work with. His tragic death did create a tidal wave of good will that enabled civil rights and Medicare legislation. Lyndon Johnson spent all of his political capital pushing those landmark bills through Congress. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would’ve been very happy.
Rest in peace Mr. President.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Remembering People For What They Did, Not What They Became
We all age. Some more than others. Some less. Some get a surgical makeover. That works until the paint starts to peel and blister. Some people don’t know when to stop even with the makeovers- like Joan Rivers, yet she went so far over the top she’s been able to exploit it as an asset. Aging can be graceful or not. I enjoy the quiet wisdom of an elderly person who’s lived a long and interesting life. A life of hard work or intellectual work- they all have a quiet wisdom and so much to offer.
Aging can also lack grace. Life may have dealt them a tough hand, or they may have set their own bar too high and acted too harshly as their own referee and judge. Some people grow sour with their disappointments; some grow sour with their successes. Aging asks us to be forgiving of the past. Some do. Some don’t.
Few subjects are more written about than reflections on life. I won’t even attempt to add to it. . People write about their successes and failures. We can learn from both if we choose to. We prefer successful people. We want to emulate their path, their choices, and their judgment. Who would want to emulate a failure? Yet both can offer good advice. We need both, like yin and yang, to understand them fully.
People who do remarkable things and leave at the top their game are immortalized forever. A few are fortunate to leave of their own choosing. That list is short- George Washington, Bobby Orr, Mohammed Ali… Most leave not of their choosing, and they’re immortalized because they’re at or near the peak of their achievements. This list is long and sad- Jesus, JFK, Elvis, Martin Luther King, Buddy Holly, Abe Lincoln to name a few.
In either case, our image of their achievements is locked in time, undiminished and unblemished in the absence of failures that never occur later in life. We remember them only for what they were, not what they would’ve become. That’s what makes them so memorable.
Gail Collins pointed out in her OpEd today how many contemporary people would be held in higher esteem if they bowed out when their image was at a peak. She pointed out Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, and Ralph Nader, among others. Joe would’ve been revered if he walked away from politics after running for VP, instead of the incoherent egocentric limelighter he’s become. If Rudy retired from politics after being Mayor of New York, he’d be remembered as the greatest mayor who ever lived in the worst of times, instead of the worst presidential candidate of modern times. Ralph Nader, the consumer’s crusader, spoiled Al Gore’s bid for President and eversince seems destined to fall into the same bucket as Lyndon Larouche and other fringe politicians, rather than being remembered for all the good things he did. George Bush should have retired after being Governor of Texas, or earlier, after graduating from Yale.
Maybe it happens because few people can sense when they’re at the top of their game. Like rushing to buy overpriced stock when the price is still rising, there’s a wishful expectation that the ceiling is yet to be found, and in the end we remember them for what they became, not for what they were at that fleeting moment when they were at the top of their game.
Aging can also lack grace. Life may have dealt them a tough hand, or they may have set their own bar too high and acted too harshly as their own referee and judge. Some people grow sour with their disappointments; some grow sour with their successes. Aging asks us to be forgiving of the past. Some do. Some don’t.
Few subjects are more written about than reflections on life. I won’t even attempt to add to it. . People write about their successes and failures. We can learn from both if we choose to. We prefer successful people. We want to emulate their path, their choices, and their judgment. Who would want to emulate a failure? Yet both can offer good advice. We need both, like yin and yang, to understand them fully.
People who do remarkable things and leave at the top their game are immortalized forever. A few are fortunate to leave of their own choosing. That list is short- George Washington, Bobby Orr, Mohammed Ali… Most leave not of their choosing, and they’re immortalized because they’re at or near the peak of their achievements. This list is long and sad- Jesus, JFK, Elvis, Martin Luther King, Buddy Holly, Abe Lincoln to name a few.
In either case, our image of their achievements is locked in time, undiminished and unblemished in the absence of failures that never occur later in life. We remember them only for what they were, not what they would’ve become. That’s what makes them so memorable.
Gail Collins pointed out in her OpEd today how many contemporary people would be held in higher esteem if they bowed out when their image was at a peak. She pointed out Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, and Ralph Nader, among others. Joe would’ve been revered if he walked away from politics after running for VP, instead of the incoherent egocentric limelighter he’s become. If Rudy retired from politics after being Mayor of New York, he’d be remembered as the greatest mayor who ever lived in the worst of times, instead of the worst presidential candidate of modern times. Ralph Nader, the consumer’s crusader, spoiled Al Gore’s bid for President and eversince seems destined to fall into the same bucket as Lyndon Larouche and other fringe politicians, rather than being remembered for all the good things he did. George Bush should have retired after being Governor of Texas, or earlier, after graduating from Yale.
Maybe it happens because few people can sense when they’re at the top of their game. Like rushing to buy overpriced stock when the price is still rising, there’s a wishful expectation that the ceiling is yet to be found, and in the end we remember them for what they became, not for what they were at that fleeting moment when they were at the top of their game.
Friday, November 20, 2009
States May Get Public Option Option
Senator Harry Reid apparently has slipped the state’s right to opt out of the public option into the Senate version of the Health Bill, making the Senate bill Harry’s Homemade Health Bill. This would be a tragic concession to make to buy votes.
Maine’s Senators Collins and Snowe may be swayed with this wrinkle. Given Senator Lieberman’s certain opposition, this gives the Democrats a possible one vote margin. I still don’t like those odds, and Mr. Reid still needs to sweeten the bill with local pork to pull in Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, as well as to two other Democratic holdouts, Senators Lincoln of Arkansas and Nelson of Nebraska.
Allowing states to opt out of the public option would be a disaster for the nearly poor. The very poor will still get Medicaid. But people in the income range above the poverty line, up to about $50,000 per year will be the big losers. These people are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for private health insurance. Not having access to affordable options will ensure they remain uninsured.
The states that have the poorest health care record- and the most uninsured – are likely to be the first states to jump on the opportunity to preserve the status quo. In case you’re wondering who these state are, they’re all the southeastern states. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The southern states have no limits on how far they will go to suppress the underclass. Remember slavery was a State’s Right, held in such high regard by the south they declared independence and died to defend it.
The public option also threatens the very life of insurance companies. Any opportunity to kill it in any state will be to their benefit. Having the option to opt out will be a battle cry for the insurance industry. They’ll pad the pockets of state legislators to get the option out. Insurance companies know they can’t compete with the government. They enjoy a near monopoly in most southern states and will work to preserve the status quo wherever they can.
Maine’s Senators Collins and Snowe may be swayed with this wrinkle. Given Senator Lieberman’s certain opposition, this gives the Democrats a possible one vote margin. I still don’t like those odds, and Mr. Reid still needs to sweeten the bill with local pork to pull in Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, as well as to two other Democratic holdouts, Senators Lincoln of Arkansas and Nelson of Nebraska.
Allowing states to opt out of the public option would be a disaster for the nearly poor. The very poor will still get Medicaid. But people in the income range above the poverty line, up to about $50,000 per year will be the big losers. These people are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for private health insurance. Not having access to affordable options will ensure they remain uninsured.
The states that have the poorest health care record- and the most uninsured – are likely to be the first states to jump on the opportunity to preserve the status quo. In case you’re wondering who these state are, they’re all the southeastern states. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The southern states have no limits on how far they will go to suppress the underclass. Remember slavery was a State’s Right, held in such high regard by the south they declared independence and died to defend it.
The public option also threatens the very life of insurance companies. Any opportunity to kill it in any state will be to their benefit. Having the option to opt out will be a battle cry for the insurance industry. They’ll pad the pockets of state legislators to get the option out. Insurance companies know they can’t compete with the government. They enjoy a near monopoly in most southern states and will work to preserve the status quo wherever they can.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah Palin Going Rogue: Ready, Fire, Aim
One of the sins of being retired is the opportunity to watch daytime TV. So I must confess I watched Oprah for the first time in my life yesterday. I never watch her show, but she got me yesterday with the Sarah Palin interview. I hope Sarah Palin gets enough money from her book deal to break even from her presidential campaign. She seemed to be exploited by the McCain camp and she deserves to get some money to offset her wardrobe debt. Hell will surely freeze over before I would ever vote for. Her stand on every issue is opposite to mine, but I really wanted to hear her one more time and try to understand what makes her so popular. I sort of enjoyed listening to her. She reminded me of Gracie Allen, except Gracie was sharp and only pretended to be incoherent. Gracie said, “I was so surprised at being born that I didn't speak for a year and a half." Or when asked how to speak French, "You speak it the same way you speak English, you just use different words." Kinda reminds you of Sarah, doesn't it?
Every once in while Sarah Palin would say something that could be extrapolated to mean something. Her explanation of her response to Katie Curic’s question of what books and magazines she read had a ring of truth. She was upset that a question as demeaning as that would be asked of her, as if she were a country bumpkin, as if magazines and newspapers didn’t exist up in Alaska- she said she refused to answer because she was insulted by the intent of the question. Katie wouldn't ask Hillary that question. OK. I may give her that one, but I’ll bet “People” was rolling through her mind over an over. If she had been quick on her feet she could’ve said, “I watch your news program every night… I couldn’t be more informed than that now could I, wink – wink …”
I was also taken by her impulsive nature. You never quite know how she will say what you know she will say. Her underlining philosophy is rock solid conservative. Yet the logic behind her explanation of issues is left as an exercise to the listener. If she had been around for the 2000 presidential election what a hoot it would’ve been to have her as GW's running mate. Between the two of them, they would make a complete sentence.
I’m convinced she will reap some cash on her book deal and then head back to Wasilla and hunt moose or be a hockey mom for the rest of her life. She is popular though, and that’s a scary thing to behold. But then, so is NASCAR racing, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Reality TV. If a majority of people ever elect her President they’ll get what they deserve, and I’ll relocate to Canada. Although after hearing her one more time I’m reassured that neither will happen. America isn’t this dense- not even the NASCAR fans.
Oh, one last comment, at least she got her book title right. Here are the definitions of “rogue”:
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues
3. a tramp or vagabond.
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal.
Every once in while Sarah Palin would say something that could be extrapolated to mean something. Her explanation of her response to Katie Curic’s question of what books and magazines she read had a ring of truth. She was upset that a question as demeaning as that would be asked of her, as if she were a country bumpkin, as if magazines and newspapers didn’t exist up in Alaska- she said she refused to answer because she was insulted by the intent of the question. Katie wouldn't ask Hillary that question. OK. I may give her that one, but I’ll bet “People” was rolling through her mind over an over. If she had been quick on her feet she could’ve said, “I watch your news program every night… I couldn’t be more informed than that now could I, wink – wink …”
I was also taken by her impulsive nature. You never quite know how she will say what you know she will say. Her underlining philosophy is rock solid conservative. Yet the logic behind her explanation of issues is left as an exercise to the listener. If she had been around for the 2000 presidential election what a hoot it would’ve been to have her as GW's running mate. Between the two of them, they would make a complete sentence.
I’m convinced she will reap some cash on her book deal and then head back to Wasilla and hunt moose or be a hockey mom for the rest of her life. She is popular though, and that’s a scary thing to behold. But then, so is NASCAR racing, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Reality TV. If a majority of people ever elect her President they’ll get what they deserve, and I’ll relocate to Canada. Although after hearing her one more time I’m reassured that neither will happen. America isn’t this dense- not even the NASCAR fans.
Oh, one last comment, at least she got her book title right. Here are the definitions of “rogue”:
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues
3. a tramp or vagabond.
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal.
Trial of 9/11 Conspirators in Civil Court, in New York City?
The Republicans are up in arms over the decision to try the terrorists in civil court. They want all the 9/11 perpetrators tried in military court. Many Republicans like Dick Cheney seem to prefer no trial at all- just let them rot in prison. The perpetrators include a high-ranking Al Qaeda member, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Republicans (and Joe Liberman) insist the terrorists should be given a military tribunal, not a namby-pamby civil court trial. Republicans claim they committed acts of war by launching an unprecedented multipoint attack on our homeland. But is this really an act of war or just a well-coordinated criminal action?
We apprehended them on the battlefield in Afghanistan, on a battlefield we created. So why not treat them as warriors and give them over to the military tribunal? Is fairness an issue? Do we get extra pleasure if their trial is a Military Tribunal? Will they be given a fair trial in either forum? If we tried them in military court they would be recognized as warriors, not the miserable criminals they are, and given extra credibility for their actions in the eyes of the world that may be sympathetic to their motivations. They claim retribution for eighty years of colonial rule and loss of sovereignty. They have a lot of supporters around the world.
The Republicans also keep reminding us a civil trial is a risky proposition. After all, the defendant has to be presumed innocent until found guilty, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet we know they’re guilty. We have evidence that traces them to the inner circles of Al Qaeda and some of them may have even admitted to their actions. If we know they’re guilty why do we bother to take them to trial? Does the process serve as a measure of closure to the families of the victims? Would the families of the victims prefer a Military Tribunal? A few have been very vocal in their demands for a Military Tribunal. I wonder if anyone has asked them. If they prefer a Military Tribunal would the Administration honor their request?
Some opponents of the President’s decision say the terrorists will make a mockery of our judicial system; the antics of each defendant will dishonor the court and turn a sacred institution into a circus. And there’s an outside chance that defense attorneys could win a dismissal for all sorts of technicalities that have strong precedents, like not reading the criminals their Miranda Rights. Or better yet for being tortured for information, denied access to prosecutors classified evidence, and not given a speedy trial; having been denied Habeas-Corpus that was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling on this very subject in June 2008. Seven years of imprisonment without a trial can hardly be considered compliance with due process.
Other dilemmas to consider are the venue itself and the jury. People charged with heinous crimes usually get a opportunity for a change of venue, to a location where the public may be more objective, and a jury may be comprised of people from that community who are sworn to uphold a pledge objectivity. So why have the trial in New York, just a few blocks from the scene of the crime? Why not move the venue to another state? Obviously, there is no place to go. The world knows this crime and objectivity will be no better in Fargo North Dakota than NYC. Aside from that, a jury of their peers may be hard, if not impossible to find. Would that mean they should be Muslims? Arabs? Men? An interesting dilemma indeed…
If that’s not enough, the Republicans also seem to feel that classified intelligence methods and information will be at risk of disclosure to our enemies at large, leaving us at increased risk and vulnerable to other terrorist actions. There’s also the risk that some wackos or comrades-in-arms will martyr themselves and endanger the lives of more people in New York City during the trial.
Given all of these questions, why is the administration willing to run the gamut of all these obstacles to seek justice for people who distain our country and everything it stands for? There’s only one answer- because this is America and this is how we function. To admit that our system of justice is not robust enough to handle these criminals, as the Republicans seem to imply, would be an admission that our judicial system has failed us. We have a system of justice and we’re compelled to use it no matter how repugnant the criminals may be. History may well view this event as one of the greatest tests of our judicial system.
We apprehended them on the battlefield in Afghanistan, on a battlefield we created. So why not treat them as warriors and give them over to the military tribunal? Is fairness an issue? Do we get extra pleasure if their trial is a Military Tribunal? Will they be given a fair trial in either forum? If we tried them in military court they would be recognized as warriors, not the miserable criminals they are, and given extra credibility for their actions in the eyes of the world that may be sympathetic to their motivations. They claim retribution for eighty years of colonial rule and loss of sovereignty. They have a lot of supporters around the world.
The Republicans also keep reminding us a civil trial is a risky proposition. After all, the defendant has to be presumed innocent until found guilty, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet we know they’re guilty. We have evidence that traces them to the inner circles of Al Qaeda and some of them may have even admitted to their actions. If we know they’re guilty why do we bother to take them to trial? Does the process serve as a measure of closure to the families of the victims? Would the families of the victims prefer a Military Tribunal? A few have been very vocal in their demands for a Military Tribunal. I wonder if anyone has asked them. If they prefer a Military Tribunal would the Administration honor their request?
Some opponents of the President’s decision say the terrorists will make a mockery of our judicial system; the antics of each defendant will dishonor the court and turn a sacred institution into a circus. And there’s an outside chance that defense attorneys could win a dismissal for all sorts of technicalities that have strong precedents, like not reading the criminals their Miranda Rights. Or better yet for being tortured for information, denied access to prosecutors classified evidence, and not given a speedy trial; having been denied Habeas-Corpus that was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling on this very subject in June 2008. Seven years of imprisonment without a trial can hardly be considered compliance with due process.
Other dilemmas to consider are the venue itself and the jury. People charged with heinous crimes usually get a opportunity for a change of venue, to a location where the public may be more objective, and a jury may be comprised of people from that community who are sworn to uphold a pledge objectivity. So why have the trial in New York, just a few blocks from the scene of the crime? Why not move the venue to another state? Obviously, there is no place to go. The world knows this crime and objectivity will be no better in Fargo North Dakota than NYC. Aside from that, a jury of their peers may be hard, if not impossible to find. Would that mean they should be Muslims? Arabs? Men? An interesting dilemma indeed…
If that’s not enough, the Republicans also seem to feel that classified intelligence methods and information will be at risk of disclosure to our enemies at large, leaving us at increased risk and vulnerable to other terrorist actions. There’s also the risk that some wackos or comrades-in-arms will martyr themselves and endanger the lives of more people in New York City during the trial.
Given all of these questions, why is the administration willing to run the gamut of all these obstacles to seek justice for people who distain our country and everything it stands for? There’s only one answer- because this is America and this is how we function. To admit that our system of justice is not robust enough to handle these criminals, as the Republicans seem to imply, would be an admission that our judicial system has failed us. We have a system of justice and we’re compelled to use it no matter how repugnant the criminals may be. History may well view this event as one of the greatest tests of our judicial system.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
China Visit a Declaration of Misguided Priorities
The President is making a humble visit to the Bank of China this week. China holds 800 billion dollars of US Debt. Given that economic leverage it’s hard for the President to scold the Chinese Government for an unending string of human rights violations, but he picked a moment to scratch it off his to-do list, albeit with the full knowledge and blessing of the Chinese Government.
He held a “town style” meeting in Shanghai to a very small crowd of students. The forum was not covered by the Chinese press or media- no one in China knew that he held the forum, nor did they hear him say, quite gracefully if not pathetically, that great countries are sensitive to the human rights of people- note the third person tone- and great countries thrive when their people have freedom of expression- again in the third person.
It’s almost as if he was having a beer with the leaders of China, and he said something offhanded like, “I’m obligated to say something about human rights, you know the freedom thing, can you help me out here?” And the leaders said, “Sure, no problem.” “Can I do it to an audience of young students?” “Sure, no problem” So off he goes to an oversized closet with a couple dozen well chosen “students” to hold an old fashioned town hall type forum. The western press is all over this like some crusade of freedom and the Chinese Government completely censored the event from the billion or so people that really needed to hear it.
It’s unfortunate; no it’s criminal, that we always place a higher priority on money than principles. What a great country we would really be if the President scolded China in a large public forum before millions of Chinese people, and said, “Keep your money, we don’t need it as much as you need your freedom”, and acted as a real catalyst toward progress in the human rights struggle in China. That would be something to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, not ensuring that the Bank of China will always be open for business on the backs of a billion people who don’t have a clue what’s happening to them.
Here's an article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18china.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
He held a “town style” meeting in Shanghai to a very small crowd of students. The forum was not covered by the Chinese press or media- no one in China knew that he held the forum, nor did they hear him say, quite gracefully if not pathetically, that great countries are sensitive to the human rights of people- note the third person tone- and great countries thrive when their people have freedom of expression- again in the third person.
It’s almost as if he was having a beer with the leaders of China, and he said something offhanded like, “I’m obligated to say something about human rights, you know the freedom thing, can you help me out here?” And the leaders said, “Sure, no problem.” “Can I do it to an audience of young students?” “Sure, no problem” So off he goes to an oversized closet with a couple dozen well chosen “students” to hold an old fashioned town hall type forum. The western press is all over this like some crusade of freedom and the Chinese Government completely censored the event from the billion or so people that really needed to hear it.
It’s unfortunate; no it’s criminal, that we always place a higher priority on money than principles. What a great country we would really be if the President scolded China in a large public forum before millions of Chinese people, and said, “Keep your money, we don’t need it as much as you need your freedom”, and acted as a real catalyst toward progress in the human rights struggle in China. That would be something to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, not ensuring that the Bank of China will always be open for business on the backs of a billion people who don’t have a clue what’s happening to them.
Here's an article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18china.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Apple Wins Copyright Case Against Clone Company- Psystar
Apple wins again in its never ending struggle to remain the smallest computer company in the world. Psystar was buying the Mac operating system from Apple, installing it in their clones and selling them. Critics called them Hackintoshes. Yet this is exactly what all Windows systems products do. Dell buys the Windows operating system, installs it in their PCs and sells it to you. Long ago Apple decided that no other company would have the opportunity to sell their product- sort of a backwards logic that wealth will somehow be diluted if more companies are sharing the market. The ruling is most interesting because history has already proven them wrong, way wrong, and yet they continue the dream, like an investment in personal ego that remains blind to reality.
The ruling allows Apple to continue to sell it’s superior operating system exclusively within it’s own computer and the public gets overcharged for the product. Sort of a minopoly- if you want it, pay for it approach to business. The consumer gets the short end of the stick and Apple ensures its teeny-weeny share of the market.
It’s too bad really. Mac has a better operating system than Microsoft ever had. Yet they took a philosophical direction long ago pursuing a closed architecture, rather than open architecture, and well, the rest is history. Today Mac owns a whopping 5% of the computer business, although you wouldn’t know that by all the commercials they run on TV. Dell is the largest seller of computers in the world, quite possibly more than 10 times the sales volume of Apple, yet they don’t even advertise. They do it by selling a comparable product at half to one third the price of Apple. It reminds me of the old gamblers saying, the winner likes to chitchat and the loser screams deal!
For the less informed, or less interested PC buffs, Apple was the first company to introduce the mouse into a computer at a time when the world was struggling with IBM PCs running the Microsoft DOS operating system. The IBM had all the capabilities of a typewriter, nothing more, when Apple was introduced and provided most of the capabilities we take for granted today. If Apple had taken an open systems approach when it first introduced the Macintosh (or even the Apple) while Microsoft was still trying to figure out how to connect a mouse to their early PCs, today Steve Jobs would be the richest man in the world and Bill Gates would just be an unknown Harvard dropout.
By insisting on a closed architecture, Apple will continue to lose market share and will eventually become extinct like celibate Shakers. They too made a good product, but their business plan was severely flawed from the start!
The ruling allows Apple to continue to sell it’s superior operating system exclusively within it’s own computer and the public gets overcharged for the product. Sort of a minopoly- if you want it, pay for it approach to business. The consumer gets the short end of the stick and Apple ensures its teeny-weeny share of the market.
It’s too bad really. Mac has a better operating system than Microsoft ever had. Yet they took a philosophical direction long ago pursuing a closed architecture, rather than open architecture, and well, the rest is history. Today Mac owns a whopping 5% of the computer business, although you wouldn’t know that by all the commercials they run on TV. Dell is the largest seller of computers in the world, quite possibly more than 10 times the sales volume of Apple, yet they don’t even advertise. They do it by selling a comparable product at half to one third the price of Apple. It reminds me of the old gamblers saying, the winner likes to chitchat and the loser screams deal!
For the less informed, or less interested PC buffs, Apple was the first company to introduce the mouse into a computer at a time when the world was struggling with IBM PCs running the Microsoft DOS operating system. The IBM had all the capabilities of a typewriter, nothing more, when Apple was introduced and provided most of the capabilities we take for granted today. If Apple had taken an open systems approach when it first introduced the Macintosh (or even the Apple) while Microsoft was still trying to figure out how to connect a mouse to their early PCs, today Steve Jobs would be the richest man in the world and Bill Gates would just be an unknown Harvard dropout.
By insisting on a closed architecture, Apple will continue to lose market share and will eventually become extinct like celibate Shakers. They too made a good product, but their business plan was severely flawed from the start!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Pro-War Advocates Discrediting the Messenger?
The friction between Gen Ekinberry, (Ret.) and Gen McChrystal is not new, and the difference of opinion on how to proceed in Afghanistan is adding new drama to the dialogue. It’s clear that Ekinberry also differs with his boss, Hillary Clinton, who supports an increase of 30,000 troops. Now reports are being circulated that Gen Ekinberry is heavy handed with his people. We’re talking generals here, wasn’t that a good quality back in the days of Patton and MacArthur? Is someone trying to discredit the messenger? Probably…
If anything, this seems like typical Washington politics going about the business of discrediting a worthy opponent of the war. Clearly on the side of ramping up the fight we have: Adm. Mullin- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Hillary Clinton- Secretary of State, Robert Gates- Secretary of Defense, and Gen McChrystal- Top General in Afghanistan. And on the side of wait a minute, this doesn’t smell good: President Obama, Eric Holder- AG, Gen Ekinberry- Ambassador to Afghanistan, Joe Biden- VP, and Rahm Emmanuel- Chief of Staff. Ekinberry is held in high regard by the President and he just may be using the Ambassador in this sometimes secret, sometimes public dialogue to further his position and win the public over.
I can’t help but wonder if both sides have an applause meter running in the background for each leak and counterpoint. The latest leak of Ekinberry’s cables to the Washington Post and the New York Times came from administration officials. The game is slowly turning away from escalation, but will it turn toward a draw down? Not likely in the near term, but six months from now we’ll be talking exit plan.
I’m sure the President regrets his hasty decision earlier in the year to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He made a strategic error ratcheting up the war before he got his footing on the situation. The public is growing uneasy about the American losses. If he abandoned Afghanistan tomorrow, next year it will be history. If he makes the war bigger, bloodier, and longer, the Democrats will be skewered in the 2010 elections. Opponents will accuse him of fighting a war instead of unemployment, but they’ll find fault with anything he does, so why not just leave and get this mess behind us?
If anything, this seems like typical Washington politics going about the business of discrediting a worthy opponent of the war. Clearly on the side of ramping up the fight we have: Adm. Mullin- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Hillary Clinton- Secretary of State, Robert Gates- Secretary of Defense, and Gen McChrystal- Top General in Afghanistan. And on the side of wait a minute, this doesn’t smell good: President Obama, Eric Holder- AG, Gen Ekinberry- Ambassador to Afghanistan, Joe Biden- VP, and Rahm Emmanuel- Chief of Staff. Ekinberry is held in high regard by the President and he just may be using the Ambassador in this sometimes secret, sometimes public dialogue to further his position and win the public over.
I can’t help but wonder if both sides have an applause meter running in the background for each leak and counterpoint. The latest leak of Ekinberry’s cables to the Washington Post and the New York Times came from administration officials. The game is slowly turning away from escalation, but will it turn toward a draw down? Not likely in the near term, but six months from now we’ll be talking exit plan.
I’m sure the President regrets his hasty decision earlier in the year to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He made a strategic error ratcheting up the war before he got his footing on the situation. The public is growing uneasy about the American losses. If he abandoned Afghanistan tomorrow, next year it will be history. If he makes the war bigger, bloodier, and longer, the Democrats will be skewered in the 2010 elections. Opponents will accuse him of fighting a war instead of unemployment, but they’ll find fault with anything he does, so why not just leave and get this mess behind us?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Oops, RNC's Cigna Health Insurance Covers Abortions
It appears that the Republican National Committee is hastily conducting a revision of their medical coverage. I normally try to avoid writing about stupid things, but the Republican Party just keeps on giving. A reporter called the RNC Wednesday and asked if their health insurance covered abortions. Yep, they do. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is now running around like Chicken Little trying to fix the embarrassment. It seems that the RNC has had abortion coverage since 1991, and gee, nobody knew about it, or least anybody that would not use it didn't know about it. How could this possibly happen in the party that forces you to sign an "I shall not get an abortion" oath to be a party leader? He’s calling for an executive committee review of the insurance policy immediately. Here’s the story from ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/rnc-planning-immediate-review-of-its-abortion-coverage.html
The Stupak Amendment to the House Health Bill bans all abortions in the exchange pool policies, and was voted for unanimously by all the Republicans in the House. Oh the disgrace, now the RNC has to scrub the coverage from their own health insurance policy. Michael Steele will sweep this elephant (no pun intended) under the rug in no time. I guess as long as he eliminates it from their policy quickly, in the first trimester of a three day old story, it mitigates the shame of having the coverage for 18 years.
Speed is really important, someone might get pregnant any day and want to use it, although it would appear she would be shunned and have to change parties now. Opps, that won’t work either, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition… I wonder if their policy covers lobotomies? Call’em and ask.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/rnc-planning-immediate-review-of-its-abortion-coverage.html
The Stupak Amendment to the House Health Bill bans all abortions in the exchange pool policies, and was voted for unanimously by all the Republicans in the House. Oh the disgrace, now the RNC has to scrub the coverage from their own health insurance policy. Michael Steele will sweep this elephant (no pun intended) under the rug in no time. I guess as long as he eliminates it from their policy quickly, in the first trimester of a three day old story, it mitigates the shame of having the coverage for 18 years.
Speed is really important, someone might get pregnant any day and want to use it, although it would appear she would be shunned and have to change parties now. Opps, that won’t work either, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition… I wonder if their policy covers lobotomies? Call’em and ask.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Afghan Ambassador Says Don’t Send More Troops!
Who is this guy and why should we listen to him? For starters this is not your typical well-healed political campaign donation payback appointment. Lt. Gen Karl Ekinberry, (Ret.) served two tours of duty in Afghanistan: 2002-2003 and 2005-2007 as the top military commander in Afghanistan. He has all the credentials to be a commentator seated on the right side of Karl Rove on Fox News. He was appointed Ambassador in January. Having been intimately engaged in both military and political circles in Afghanistan, he just may be the most qualified person in the world to offer advice to the President.
Why has he been so quiet until now? His chain-of-command upbringing was no doubt getting in the way. He sent a classified message (through chain of command) to the President expressing his concern for sending more troops, and it mysteriously got leaked to the press… wink-wink… So the President may have outed an ally in the how-do-I-get-out-of-Afghanistan dilemma. Ekinberry’s caution against sending more troops may be based on his dealings with the Afghan Government since he became our Ambassador. He said the Afghan Government is corrupt (ambassador’s never use that language), and unable – and possibly unwilling- to lift their weight in support of our troops, in effect putting our troops in unknown peril with no clear plan for success.
President Obama is taking this new input very seriously. He now wants to see more details on exactly how we get to the end-state where we can withdraw and have the mission accomplished, although it’s unclear to me what that means (maybe for him too).
President Obama is a very intelligent man, and yet this intelligent man is banging his head on the wall trying to rationalize why we’re there and how we can do some good and leave with our honor in tact. I think he’s beginning to realize the Vietnamness of the situation. We can only hope that he will not listen to the people who want to make war, who don’t have a clue on how to exit the region, and use his intelligence and position to get us out of this quagmire sooner, not later.
Why has he been so quiet until now? His chain-of-command upbringing was no doubt getting in the way. He sent a classified message (through chain of command) to the President expressing his concern for sending more troops, and it mysteriously got leaked to the press… wink-wink… So the President may have outed an ally in the how-do-I-get-out-of-Afghanistan dilemma. Ekinberry’s caution against sending more troops may be based on his dealings with the Afghan Government since he became our Ambassador. He said the Afghan Government is corrupt (ambassador’s never use that language), and unable – and possibly unwilling- to lift their weight in support of our troops, in effect putting our troops in unknown peril with no clear plan for success.
President Obama is taking this new input very seriously. He now wants to see more details on exactly how we get to the end-state where we can withdraw and have the mission accomplished, although it’s unclear to me what that means (maybe for him too).
President Obama is a very intelligent man, and yet this intelligent man is banging his head on the wall trying to rationalize why we’re there and how we can do some good and leave with our honor in tact. I think he’s beginning to realize the Vietnamness of the situation. We can only hope that he will not listen to the people who want to make war, who don’t have a clue on how to exit the region, and use his intelligence and position to get us out of this quagmire sooner, not later.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Day
People can do many honorable things in life, but few if any, are more honorable than standing up to serve our country in a time of need. And no sacrifice is greater than a life given up in service to the country. To all the veterans in America, I salute you and thank you for your service.
I remember a VFW Commander speaking at an assembly when I was in high school. The year was 1962- before Vietnam, and a mere nine years after the Korean War. I remember him saying that he wished his organization would wither away and no one would ever again walk into their midst as a veteran of war. I remember it so well because I remember thinking to myself, “We just endured the Cuban Missile Crisis- what he wants will never happen.” The Cold War was raging and we really had no idea if it would heat up or not.
I grew up in the aftermath of WWII and Korea, and war was always talked about. When I was a kid, we played war, and I endured air raid drills where we would crawl under our desk to safety. The worst of all possible wars was thankfully averted, the Cold War melted, and I felt a great sigh of relief. There was a fleeting moment of time between the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Gulf War when I thought that VFW Commander might finally get his wish.
Vietnam was an unforgivable sacrifice of American lives. I was sure we would never make that mistake again. I was wrong. Now several wars later the President is pondering how many troops to send into war—not the wisdom of being there—only how many to send. My advice to him: the outcome will not be affected by how many troops we send into Afghanistan. The only difference between sending 10,000 or 100,000 troops is how many American lives will be lost. We went there seeking revenge for 9/11. Now people want to send more troops because we're taking casualties. Unfortunately, they become our justification to fight on. The longer we stay, the higher the cost becomes.
In the end, Afghanistan will no doubt remain unchanged. The people who are born there will continue to practice their age-old culture of male domination and the poppy industry. No centralized form of government has ever endured. Tribal thugs will continue to dominate the people. Trying to change the culture through war would be like trying to eliminate racism by killing all the racists. Peace won’t happen this way. The country will not be changed for the better. In the end they will hate us, just as they hated the Russians and the British who preceded us.
We seem destined to create new members for the VFW, despite the good Commander’s wish in that high school assembly in 1962.
I remember a VFW Commander speaking at an assembly when I was in high school. The year was 1962- before Vietnam, and a mere nine years after the Korean War. I remember him saying that he wished his organization would wither away and no one would ever again walk into their midst as a veteran of war. I remember it so well because I remember thinking to myself, “We just endured the Cuban Missile Crisis- what he wants will never happen.” The Cold War was raging and we really had no idea if it would heat up or not.
I grew up in the aftermath of WWII and Korea, and war was always talked about. When I was a kid, we played war, and I endured air raid drills where we would crawl under our desk to safety. The worst of all possible wars was thankfully averted, the Cold War melted, and I felt a great sigh of relief. There was a fleeting moment of time between the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Gulf War when I thought that VFW Commander might finally get his wish.
Vietnam was an unforgivable sacrifice of American lives. I was sure we would never make that mistake again. I was wrong. Now several wars later the President is pondering how many troops to send into war—not the wisdom of being there—only how many to send. My advice to him: the outcome will not be affected by how many troops we send into Afghanistan. The only difference between sending 10,000 or 100,000 troops is how many American lives will be lost. We went there seeking revenge for 9/11. Now people want to send more troops because we're taking casualties. Unfortunately, they become our justification to fight on. The longer we stay, the higher the cost becomes.
In the end, Afghanistan will no doubt remain unchanged. The people who are born there will continue to practice their age-old culture of male domination and the poppy industry. No centralized form of government has ever endured. Tribal thugs will continue to dominate the people. Trying to change the culture through war would be like trying to eliminate racism by killing all the racists. Peace won’t happen this way. The country will not be changed for the better. In the end they will hate us, just as they hated the Russians and the British who preceded us.
We seem destined to create new members for the VFW, despite the good Commander’s wish in that high school assembly in 1962.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Florida’s Moral Compass is Spinning Out of Control
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of sentencing children to life in prison without parole for crimes that do not, I repeat, do not involve homicide. Obviously, children who kill may deserve life in prison, although even that may be argued as cruel and unusual punishment. At the heart of the argument is the question of when people are mature enough to be fully culpable for their actions. The court seemed to be hung up on the age thing. Justice Breyer highlighted the dilemma by asking rhetorically, is it 10? No. 11? No. 17? Maybe…
Florida is at the heart of the case. There are 111 juveniles serving life without parole for crimes that do not involve killing. 77 of these cases are in Florida. One example being cited as cruel and unusual punishment is the case of a 13 old convicted of rape. My goodness, the child was barely into puberty! And he gets life without parole… Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the national average sentence for rape is 10 years. She was pointing out how far out of line the Florida punishment is with most of America. It’s not surprising either that many of these cases involve African American boys who raped white girls. Not fifty years ago, they would’ve been lynched without a trial. Some progress I suppose….
In my view it’s a clear case of too much retribution and not enough consideration for redemption. They shouldn’t call prisons correctional facilities if they only intend to exact public retribution. They should call then punishment facilities and stop implying that redemption and good behavior might be recognized by the system.
State sovereignty may rear its ugly head on this case as well. Even though the rest of the nation may be more lenient and forgiving of children than Florida, Justice Roberts may come down on the side of the state’s right to set the punishment in accordance with the mores of the state, not the nation. But isn't that the kind of logic that tolerated lynching? Justice Thomas, wake up and say something, please...
Florida is at the heart of the case. There are 111 juveniles serving life without parole for crimes that do not involve killing. 77 of these cases are in Florida. One example being cited as cruel and unusual punishment is the case of a 13 old convicted of rape. My goodness, the child was barely into puberty! And he gets life without parole… Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the national average sentence for rape is 10 years. She was pointing out how far out of line the Florida punishment is with most of America. It’s not surprising either that many of these cases involve African American boys who raped white girls. Not fifty years ago, they would’ve been lynched without a trial. Some progress I suppose….
In my view it’s a clear case of too much retribution and not enough consideration for redemption. They shouldn’t call prisons correctional facilities if they only intend to exact public retribution. They should call then punishment facilities and stop implying that redemption and good behavior might be recognized by the system.
State sovereignty may rear its ugly head on this case as well. Even though the rest of the nation may be more lenient and forgiving of children than Florida, Justice Roberts may come down on the side of the state’s right to set the punishment in accordance with the mores of the state, not the nation. But isn't that the kind of logic that tolerated lynching? Justice Thomas, wake up and say something, please...
Monday, November 9, 2009
Should We Teach Our Children to Hunt?
Is this subject even worth debating? … Put guns in the hands of children? For shame! Kill something? Even more shameful… My inital thought is what a stupid thing to do, but it may be worth a little more thought.
My Grandfather took me deer hunting when I was young, and he taught me how to hunt-- I never shot a deer- - but I learned a lot in the process. I think he just enjoyed being with his grandson and teaching me little factoids of life. I enjoyed hearing them. He made deer seem ghostly by their stealthy nature; I was sure I’d never see one. He’d point out where they slept, where they ate, the direction they went, and even where they pooped. He’d pick up the pea shaped scat, roll it in his fingers, sniff it and say, “We just missed him.”. I never saw a deer while I had my shotgun in hand. Now they roam the field behind my house almost every evening like cows. They seem to know that hunting is forbidden there, and take refuge in the sanctity of my back yard.
Ironically, teaching a child to hunt may teach life long lessons about the value of life. By pursuing a deer in the hunt we learn the value of freedom, and when we take a deer it’s important to teach the value of the life we’re taking. We say a prayer over the body of the animal that would give us life. When we say a blessing before dinner, we say “ Bless this food...”. It no doubt derives from a time when we meant, “Bless this animal that gave it’s life for me…”, but we don’t think of the animal too much anymore, only the benefit we derive from it.
I think I’d rather eat the meat of a wild animal that has lived a free and honorable life, than purchase meat from factory farms that treat animals inhumanly, slaughters them without respect for their lives, and without the dignity they deserve. Most hunters revere their prey; they hunt humanly, and consume the animal with reverence and respect. Nobody gets emotional over a Big Mac, and that’s where the killing places no value on life- nobody remembers the poor mistreated animal when they eat it, nor the freedom and dignity it never had.
We teach our children (and they teach us) about “fast food nation”, and all the perils of mistreating animals, mistreatment of immigrant workers, and the destruction of our forests so farmers can raise cattle, but we keep on eating the products of the system we despise. Is there honor in that? Even if we decide to be vegetarians, there’s still the lingering injustice to the immigrant farm workers, the polution of the land with chemicals, and the spread of genetically engineered crops that may drive plant diversity into extinction.
We can’t all grow our own food, nor can we all eat only from organic, local, sustainable farms that treat the land with reverence. We can try, but on average it’s very hard, if not impossible to exist entirely on food from the farmer's market, unless the farmer’s markets could be accessed daily. Even though it's hard, I’m taking a personal pledge to eat only earth friendly food. I would even eat meat if I could have the honor of blessing the animal that gave its life for me.
So call me stupid, but after thinking about it, hunting doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing to teach children- especially if they get a holistic lesson of what they are doing and why, and they learn the difference between killing and giving life.
My Grandfather took me deer hunting when I was young, and he taught me how to hunt-- I never shot a deer- - but I learned a lot in the process. I think he just enjoyed being with his grandson and teaching me little factoids of life. I enjoyed hearing them. He made deer seem ghostly by their stealthy nature; I was sure I’d never see one. He’d point out where they slept, where they ate, the direction they went, and even where they pooped. He’d pick up the pea shaped scat, roll it in his fingers, sniff it and say, “We just missed him.”. I never saw a deer while I had my shotgun in hand. Now they roam the field behind my house almost every evening like cows. They seem to know that hunting is forbidden there, and take refuge in the sanctity of my back yard.
Ironically, teaching a child to hunt may teach life long lessons about the value of life. By pursuing a deer in the hunt we learn the value of freedom, and when we take a deer it’s important to teach the value of the life we’re taking. We say a prayer over the body of the animal that would give us life. When we say a blessing before dinner, we say “ Bless this food...”. It no doubt derives from a time when we meant, “Bless this animal that gave it’s life for me…”, but we don’t think of the animal too much anymore, only the benefit we derive from it.
I think I’d rather eat the meat of a wild animal that has lived a free and honorable life, than purchase meat from factory farms that treat animals inhumanly, slaughters them without respect for their lives, and without the dignity they deserve. Most hunters revere their prey; they hunt humanly, and consume the animal with reverence and respect. Nobody gets emotional over a Big Mac, and that’s where the killing places no value on life- nobody remembers the poor mistreated animal when they eat it, nor the freedom and dignity it never had.
We teach our children (and they teach us) about “fast food nation”, and all the perils of mistreating animals, mistreatment of immigrant workers, and the destruction of our forests so farmers can raise cattle, but we keep on eating the products of the system we despise. Is there honor in that? Even if we decide to be vegetarians, there’s still the lingering injustice to the immigrant farm workers, the polution of the land with chemicals, and the spread of genetically engineered crops that may drive plant diversity into extinction.
We can’t all grow our own food, nor can we all eat only from organic, local, sustainable farms that treat the land with reverence. We can try, but on average it’s very hard, if not impossible to exist entirely on food from the farmer's market, unless the farmer’s markets could be accessed daily. Even though it's hard, I’m taking a personal pledge to eat only earth friendly food. I would even eat meat if I could have the honor of blessing the animal that gave its life for me.
So call me stupid, but after thinking about it, hunting doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing to teach children- especially if they get a holistic lesson of what they are doing and why, and they learn the difference between killing and giving life.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Health Reform Clears First of Four Hurdles
It’s still way too early for the victory dance…. But after a long and contentious debate, health reform made it through the first of four hurdles with the House voting 220 to 215 in favor. It’s a momentous occasion, but the process is far from over. The Senate has to pass their version, and then both the House and the Senate have to pass the merged version before it goes to the President.
Democrats had to concede to Theocrats to allow a deplorable amendment that outlaws any funding for abortions for any person who buys insurance through the exchange- even if the government is not funding it. On principle it stinks, but the better good may end up be served by this concession- - even if further melding of church and state is the collateral damage in return for landmark legislation. It stinks, but that’s how sausage gets made in Washington.
One Republican voted for the bill- Joe Cao from New Orleans. Thanks Joe. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against their party- proving once again that getting alignment with Democrats is like herding cats. The rest of the Republicans voted “no”, in keeping with the party’s policy to oppose any legislation where the interests of the people may trump big business. They also had another opportunity to vote no by voting unanimously for the amendment to ban all abortion funding for insurance (public and private) in the exchange pool. They only seem to vote yes when they're banning something for the people.
A Republican Congressman from Texas (I don’t recall who it was, nor do I particularly care) even had the gall to argue that states should have the responsibility to provide insurance to their citizens- not big government- this laughable oratory came from the state that has the highest uninsured population in the country.
The bill is not what progressives wanted, but it’s not that bad either. Here’s what we get from the House bill:
· 36 million Americans will now have health insurance and health care
· Children will be able to stay on the parents insurance plan until age 27
· A government public option will be available in the exchange pool
· The donut hole in Medicare drug benefits is closed
· More choices will be available to people- some states are limited to one or two insurance companies today
· Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions (this includes pregnant women)
· Insurance companies cannot drop you if you get sick
· Insurance companies will come under stricter anti-trust regulation to prevent price fixing
Now on to the Senate!
Democrats had to concede to Theocrats to allow a deplorable amendment that outlaws any funding for abortions for any person who buys insurance through the exchange- even if the government is not funding it. On principle it stinks, but the better good may end up be served by this concession- - even if further melding of church and state is the collateral damage in return for landmark legislation. It stinks, but that’s how sausage gets made in Washington.
One Republican voted for the bill- Joe Cao from New Orleans. Thanks Joe. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against their party- proving once again that getting alignment with Democrats is like herding cats. The rest of the Republicans voted “no”, in keeping with the party’s policy to oppose any legislation where the interests of the people may trump big business. They also had another opportunity to vote no by voting unanimously for the amendment to ban all abortion funding for insurance (public and private) in the exchange pool. They only seem to vote yes when they're banning something for the people.
A Republican Congressman from Texas (I don’t recall who it was, nor do I particularly care) even had the gall to argue that states should have the responsibility to provide insurance to their citizens- not big government- this laughable oratory came from the state that has the highest uninsured population in the country.
The bill is not what progressives wanted, but it’s not that bad either. Here’s what we get from the House bill:
· 36 million Americans will now have health insurance and health care
· Children will be able to stay on the parents insurance plan until age 27
· A government public option will be available in the exchange pool
· The donut hole in Medicare drug benefits is closed
· More choices will be available to people- some states are limited to one or two insurance companies today
· Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions (this includes pregnant women)
· Insurance companies cannot drop you if you get sick
· Insurance companies will come under stricter anti-trust regulation to prevent price fixing
Now on to the Senate!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Fort Hood Tragedy Has Muslims Ducking for Cover
Here we go again- looking for a sinister explanation of the terrible Fort Hood tragedy. Army Maj Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim American citizen born and raised in this country, undoubtedly intended to take his own life while committing the worst possible act against his fellow men. It’s senseless; but is it an act of organized terrorism?
OK. It may be remotely possible that Hasan was acting completely rational and planned to carry out a terrorist attack against America and his fellow soldiers. It’s remotely possible, but I don’t think so. If he intended to do maximum harm, there are likely a hundred other scenarios he could have planned and carried out that would do much greater damage to us. But we will probably never know what voices were speaking to him. The man is a psychiatrist, practiced in understanding abnormalities of the human thought process. He had likely become a patient, and like most people with mental illness, he probably didn’t know it, nor did he see the horrific actions he took to be a bad thing. He was probably operating under an internal directive to serve some warped idea of the better good. If anything, it shows clearly how our value system, judgment, and consciousness of our actions rely precipitously on a healthy, well-tuned brain; it can’t tell us when it’s flawed or broken. It’s too smart to be out smarted. We lack the built in test equipment that even our cars have- check engine, check brakes, taillight out, tire pressure low, door ajar…
Not surprisingly, the conservative gabinators are characterizing his actions as the tip of the terrorist iceberg in America- the first of many “sleeper” Muslim terrorists planning and intending to do us harm. Millions of innocent, faithful people now must walk with their head tilted down in fear of retaliation and false accusations. It’s the same thinking that drove America to intern Japanese Americans in WWII. They were different than European Americans, and we let ourselves be talked into believing thousands of kind and peace loving American citizens were intent on doing us harm.
Timothy McVeigh planned and executed the Oklahoma City. It was an unforgivable act, and he was executed for it. Until 9/11 it was the worst act of terrorism ever committed on US soil. He was an Army veteran. He served in the Gulf War and earned the Bronze Star. He was a Roman Catholic. He attended Mass almost daily. I don’t remember anyone writing and ranting that Roman Catholics presented a danger to our national security... Because they don’t… Even back in the 1930s Father Charles Coughlin broadcasted antisemitic, anti-American, pro-Hitler garbage to more than forty million listeners weekly. He was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. We didn't blame Roman Catholics for his actions, nor would we intern people for being Catholic in WWII. Casting doubt about the integrity and intentions of Muslims because of the actions of one, likely very sick man, is equally absurd.
OK. It may be remotely possible that Hasan was acting completely rational and planned to carry out a terrorist attack against America and his fellow soldiers. It’s remotely possible, but I don’t think so. If he intended to do maximum harm, there are likely a hundred other scenarios he could have planned and carried out that would do much greater damage to us. But we will probably never know what voices were speaking to him. The man is a psychiatrist, practiced in understanding abnormalities of the human thought process. He had likely become a patient, and like most people with mental illness, he probably didn’t know it, nor did he see the horrific actions he took to be a bad thing. He was probably operating under an internal directive to serve some warped idea of the better good. If anything, it shows clearly how our value system, judgment, and consciousness of our actions rely precipitously on a healthy, well-tuned brain; it can’t tell us when it’s flawed or broken. It’s too smart to be out smarted. We lack the built in test equipment that even our cars have- check engine, check brakes, taillight out, tire pressure low, door ajar…
Not surprisingly, the conservative gabinators are characterizing his actions as the tip of the terrorist iceberg in America- the first of many “sleeper” Muslim terrorists planning and intending to do us harm. Millions of innocent, faithful people now must walk with their head tilted down in fear of retaliation and false accusations. It’s the same thinking that drove America to intern Japanese Americans in WWII. They were different than European Americans, and we let ourselves be talked into believing thousands of kind and peace loving American citizens were intent on doing us harm.
Timothy McVeigh planned and executed the Oklahoma City. It was an unforgivable act, and he was executed for it. Until 9/11 it was the worst act of terrorism ever committed on US soil. He was an Army veteran. He served in the Gulf War and earned the Bronze Star. He was a Roman Catholic. He attended Mass almost daily. I don’t remember anyone writing and ranting that Roman Catholics presented a danger to our national security... Because they don’t… Even back in the 1930s Father Charles Coughlin broadcasted antisemitic, anti-American, pro-Hitler garbage to more than forty million listeners weekly. He was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. We didn't blame Roman Catholics for his actions, nor would we intern people for being Catholic in WWII. Casting doubt about the integrity and intentions of Muslims because of the actions of one, likely very sick man, is equally absurd.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Cap and Trade- the Next Battleground
It seems the Democrats haven’t learned any lessons from the health care reform battle. The energy bill in the Senate committee includes nuclear power permitting and offshore drilling. The Republicans are saying that’s not enough- if cap and trade on CO2 stays in the bill, they’ll reject it.
The Democrats appear to playing Texas Hold’em with all their cards face up while the Republicans have all their cards face down. Rather than craft a partisan bill and then negotiate for what the Republicans want added in, they started with major concessions on the first card. Such a deal… The Republicans don’t have to do anything to get what they want.
The whole process is beginning to smell just like health reform. The lobbyists have both parties in their back pockets. How else would nuclear power and offshore drilling make it into the initial bill? Now Senator Kerry is suggesting if the Republicans don’t bite on these carrots, he’ll bring out his stick and punish them by removing them from the bill. Fat chance. He won’t be able to. The lobbyists won’t let him. In case you think this is small potatoes, the energy lobby has over 2200 lobbyists crawling the halls of Congress- 22 lobbyists for every Senator.
The battle to address global warming, like health care reform, is stacked against the people again. Unfortunately, this battle is probably over before it starts. Here’s an article on the latest buzz:
http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/kerry-dems-will-pull.php
The Democrats appear to playing Texas Hold’em with all their cards face up while the Republicans have all their cards face down. Rather than craft a partisan bill and then negotiate for what the Republicans want added in, they started with major concessions on the first card. Such a deal… The Republicans don’t have to do anything to get what they want.
The whole process is beginning to smell just like health reform. The lobbyists have both parties in their back pockets. How else would nuclear power and offshore drilling make it into the initial bill? Now Senator Kerry is suggesting if the Republicans don’t bite on these carrots, he’ll bring out his stick and punish them by removing them from the bill. Fat chance. He won’t be able to. The lobbyists won’t let him. In case you think this is small potatoes, the energy lobby has over 2200 lobbyists crawling the halls of Congress- 22 lobbyists for every Senator.
The battle to address global warming, like health care reform, is stacked against the people again. Unfortunately, this battle is probably over before it starts. Here’s an article on the latest buzz:
http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/kerry-dems-will-pull.php
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Equality Waltz- Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
Two Democrat governors were overturned yesterday and Maine repealed the same sex marriage law. Undoubtedly, the frustration about the economy is to blame for the Democrats getting the boot in Virginia and New Jersey. Probably memories of better times- we suppress the bad times- and clinging to the remote hope that more opportunity under a business friendly Republican governor will be a better path to recovery.
But why did Maine repeal the same sex marriage law? Do the people really lack empathy for the civil rights of others, or is it something deeper? It’s the 31st state to deny same sex marriage by voter referendum. It’s clearly deeper than civil rights. I think it's core values in conflict- a deep-seated belief in the sanctity of marriage is competing with the value of equal rights for all- it’s not surprising that the sanctity of marriage wins that tug of wills.
Parental ghosts of our childhood keep reminding us of what’s right and wrong, no matter if it’s true or not. Those ghosts whispering in our mind prevail. We’re nurtured to believe what we believe. They become truths. They can’t be changed easily. Perception becomes reality and that reality can’t be overturned lightly.
In time, younger people will become parents, and they will instill their values on the next generation. They will undoubtedly be more empathetic than past generations. It’s unfortunate that equal rights can’t be imposed like snapping a finger and saying whala! The Supreme Court could say, “Whala”. Maybe they will someday. Maybe some day we'll separate religious marriage from civil marriage, but not for many years I'm sure, if ever.
But progress has still been made. The issue is in the public dialogue. Nearly half of the voters in Maine did vote to uphold same sex marriage- that alone may be marked as a victory of sorts. Would nearly half of the voters have endorsed same sex marriage a generation ago? Not likely. So progress is being made two steps forward and one step back at a time.
But why did Maine repeal the same sex marriage law? Do the people really lack empathy for the civil rights of others, or is it something deeper? It’s the 31st state to deny same sex marriage by voter referendum. It’s clearly deeper than civil rights. I think it's core values in conflict- a deep-seated belief in the sanctity of marriage is competing with the value of equal rights for all- it’s not surprising that the sanctity of marriage wins that tug of wills.
Parental ghosts of our childhood keep reminding us of what’s right and wrong, no matter if it’s true or not. Those ghosts whispering in our mind prevail. We’re nurtured to believe what we believe. They become truths. They can’t be changed easily. Perception becomes reality and that reality can’t be overturned lightly.
In time, younger people will become parents, and they will instill their values on the next generation. They will undoubtedly be more empathetic than past generations. It’s unfortunate that equal rights can’t be imposed like snapping a finger and saying whala! The Supreme Court could say, “Whala”. Maybe they will someday. Maybe some day we'll separate religious marriage from civil marriage, but not for many years I'm sure, if ever.
But progress has still been made. The issue is in the public dialogue. Nearly half of the voters in Maine did vote to uphold same sex marriage- that alone may be marked as a victory of sorts. Would nearly half of the voters have endorsed same sex marriage a generation ago? Not likely. So progress is being made two steps forward and one step back at a time.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
One year since more Americans picked Barack Obama than John McCain in the most expensive race in history, and how do we feel about it today? A year later I’m a little impatient, a little frustrated, and a whole lotta disappointed.
Take the war in Iraq. We’re now supposed to be out of Iraq by August 2010. My math says that’s roughly 20 months after he was sworn in. And we won't really out at that time; only the troops that are committed to leave will be out by then. It’s typical Washington double speak. We plan to keep a force of nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, but for some obscure reason they don’t count. Why, I don’t know. But it fits the policy of all the other wars we fought and won. We still have troops in Germany and Japan sixty-four years after the end of the war.
Health care reform will likely be signed into law before years end. One small step for mankind, one giant leap for the health insurance industry. You can bet they will charge whatever is needed to be profitable, and being forced to take on all comers will only raise their risk, so the price of health insurance will go up to cover it. Some people will get insurance they couldn’t get before, but at what price? Forget the public option, it has a pulse, but it won’t survive.
Gay rights in America went nowhere this year, and got no support from the President. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the policy in the Armed Forces, and good people are still being discharged from the service, losing their careers, for being honest and forthright about who they are and who they love. The President is dragging his feet on this issue intentionally. President Clinton attempted to address the gay rights issue early in his first term and it derailed him from getting traction on other issues.
Obama’s war, Afghanistan, is a major disappointment. We should be leaving, not increasing our presence there. It’s a tar pit that will cost more precious American lives and only breed more terrorists- the friends and relatives of innocent people who are killed by our indiscriminate bombing. I feel that he knows he’s made the wrong choice, but can’t come up with a way to change his strategy. If the war is still raging in three years he’ll be one term president.
The bailouts and the stimulus programs are an addict’s drug. When the money stops flowing, what happens then? The problem will still be there. People will still be unemployed; houses will still be in foreclosure, Wall St will still be the world’s largest casino and pressure for corporate growth will continue to fuel credit spending and investments on margin. It’s the same game, no change.
The Patriot Act is about to be renewed. This is another major disappointment and a major defeat for our freedoms and the First Amendment.
I should feel better about having President Obama in the White House, but the "change I can believe in" hasn't happened, so I’m not feeling optimistic that it ever will happen.
Take the war in Iraq. We’re now supposed to be out of Iraq by August 2010. My math says that’s roughly 20 months after he was sworn in. And we won't really out at that time; only the troops that are committed to leave will be out by then. It’s typical Washington double speak. We plan to keep a force of nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, but for some obscure reason they don’t count. Why, I don’t know. But it fits the policy of all the other wars we fought and won. We still have troops in Germany and Japan sixty-four years after the end of the war.
Health care reform will likely be signed into law before years end. One small step for mankind, one giant leap for the health insurance industry. You can bet they will charge whatever is needed to be profitable, and being forced to take on all comers will only raise their risk, so the price of health insurance will go up to cover it. Some people will get insurance they couldn’t get before, but at what price? Forget the public option, it has a pulse, but it won’t survive.
Gay rights in America went nowhere this year, and got no support from the President. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the policy in the Armed Forces, and good people are still being discharged from the service, losing their careers, for being honest and forthright about who they are and who they love. The President is dragging his feet on this issue intentionally. President Clinton attempted to address the gay rights issue early in his first term and it derailed him from getting traction on other issues.
Obama’s war, Afghanistan, is a major disappointment. We should be leaving, not increasing our presence there. It’s a tar pit that will cost more precious American lives and only breed more terrorists- the friends and relatives of innocent people who are killed by our indiscriminate bombing. I feel that he knows he’s made the wrong choice, but can’t come up with a way to change his strategy. If the war is still raging in three years he’ll be one term president.
The bailouts and the stimulus programs are an addict’s drug. When the money stops flowing, what happens then? The problem will still be there. People will still be unemployed; houses will still be in foreclosure, Wall St will still be the world’s largest casino and pressure for corporate growth will continue to fuel credit spending and investments on margin. It’s the same game, no change.
The Patriot Act is about to be renewed. This is another major disappointment and a major defeat for our freedoms and the First Amendment.
I should feel better about having President Obama in the White House, but the "change I can believe in" hasn't happened, so I’m not feeling optimistic that it ever will happen.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Me versus We
The age old debate of the rights of the individual versus the common good seems to be coming back to the forefront with the Obama Administration pushing for mandated universal health care, increased regulation, unprecedented bailouts of banks and auto companies, and a general higher priority for issues that affect the general common good. There’s even renewed interest in Ayn Rand for her fierce stance against socialism, and of course Marxism. Our Constitution addresses both the individual and the common good for a wide variety of topics. People on one side or the other tend to read and interpret it with a filter for their personal beliefs. People on both ends of the political spectrum would probably like to shred it and start over.
I heard a Libertarian on the radio the other day say that the Constitution just defines our rights as individuals, not for the group, and that individual rights should always take precedence over the group. What’s interesting about that view is Libertarians can only exist within a group. If one person lives alone, isolated from society, every action is both libertarian and for the common good. There is no conflict or priority. The need to state an importance of one view over the other only exists when the group exists. So without a group there can be no Libertarianism. Taken to the extreme, Libertarianism is pure chaos, every individual living however they choose with no consideration for the group. Marxism goes to the opposite extreme by placing little or no value on the rights of the individual over the common good. That form of government hasn’t proved to be too successful either- - although some people might argue to the contrary. We confuse Marxism and Dictatorships. All Marxist governments have been dictators. A Marxist society born out of a true democracy has never existed. The Socialist democracies of Sweden and Denmark may be the closest thing to it.
I’m no expert on the Constitution, but there are several factoids that give evidence to the group being more important than the individual. For instance, the Preamble starts with, “We the people…” not, “Me the person”. Imminent Domain, while not stated explicitly, is derived from the 5th Amendment and considered settled law. It specifically states that persons shall be compensated for any property taken for use by the public for the public good. This has been extended with some controversy, to include property that can be taken by Imminent Domain for private commercial use as well, as long as the public good is served by the use. The Constitution also explicitly states that roads shall be provided by the Federal Government for the postal service. That granted the government the authority to take land by imminent domain for any federal road, and in so doing, was serving the common good.
I suppose Libertarians would prefer to each build only private roads and not allow anyone else to use it without their permission, which of course would include a toll. Many bridges and roads were privately owned when the country was young. The government wasn’t equipped to administer and maintain nationwide projects. Besides, we were only just evolving as a nation. So Libertarians are free to enjoy the largest government public works project ever built for the common good. A true Libertarian should probably stay off all Federal roads to avoid compromising their principals.
The tension between the rights of individuals and the common good will always exist. Since we first gathered in tribes as prehistoric people, we’ve had to make rules and consider the common good to preserve peace and tranquility. Our need to address the common good will probably increase as our population grows. The rights of individuals will likely continue to erode. Environmental protection laws and smoking bans are recent examples. It’s unfortunate in some respects, but how else can six billion people live in peace and harmony?
I heard a Libertarian on the radio the other day say that the Constitution just defines our rights as individuals, not for the group, and that individual rights should always take precedence over the group. What’s interesting about that view is Libertarians can only exist within a group. If one person lives alone, isolated from society, every action is both libertarian and for the common good. There is no conflict or priority. The need to state an importance of one view over the other only exists when the group exists. So without a group there can be no Libertarianism. Taken to the extreme, Libertarianism is pure chaos, every individual living however they choose with no consideration for the group. Marxism goes to the opposite extreme by placing little or no value on the rights of the individual over the common good. That form of government hasn’t proved to be too successful either- - although some people might argue to the contrary. We confuse Marxism and Dictatorships. All Marxist governments have been dictators. A Marxist society born out of a true democracy has never existed. The Socialist democracies of Sweden and Denmark may be the closest thing to it.
I’m no expert on the Constitution, but there are several factoids that give evidence to the group being more important than the individual. For instance, the Preamble starts with, “We the people…” not, “Me the person”. Imminent Domain, while not stated explicitly, is derived from the 5th Amendment and considered settled law. It specifically states that persons shall be compensated for any property taken for use by the public for the public good. This has been extended with some controversy, to include property that can be taken by Imminent Domain for private commercial use as well, as long as the public good is served by the use. The Constitution also explicitly states that roads shall be provided by the Federal Government for the postal service. That granted the government the authority to take land by imminent domain for any federal road, and in so doing, was serving the common good.
I suppose Libertarians would prefer to each build only private roads and not allow anyone else to use it without their permission, which of course would include a toll. Many bridges and roads were privately owned when the country was young. The government wasn’t equipped to administer and maintain nationwide projects. Besides, we were only just evolving as a nation. So Libertarians are free to enjoy the largest government public works project ever built for the common good. A true Libertarian should probably stay off all Federal roads to avoid compromising their principals.
The tension between the rights of individuals and the common good will always exist. Since we first gathered in tribes as prehistoric people, we’ve had to make rules and consider the common good to preserve peace and tranquility. Our need to address the common good will probably increase as our population grows. The rights of individuals will likely continue to erode. Environmental protection laws and smoking bans are recent examples. It’s unfortunate in some respects, but how else can six billion people live in peace and harmony?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Brooklyn- A Great NY Experience!
I had the pleasure of staying in my daughter’s apartment in Brooklyn for the last few days. It was an experience I’ll treasure. The city is so completely different from my New Hampshire home; I was taken in by everything. She lives in a trendy neighborhood of brownstones called Park Slope. It’s the perfect mix of urban conveniences and residential living. The carbon footprint of the city people is embarrassingly low compared to us country mice. Life exists quite comfortably without a car. Many people have a car, but they only use it for the occasional trip out of the city, and they rely on the subway for commuting. The leaves were falling while I was there- and yes, the side streets are lined with old trees. I noticed immediately that all the parked cars were covered in leaves. It's a visual confirmation of how unimportant cars are to city folks. I was able to find a parking space just around the corner from the apartment, and my car stayed there the entire time. It too, was covered in leaves when I went back to it five days later.
I think city people are healthier than country people. Partly because they walk everywhere, but also because they walk often-- not just once a day, but many times a day for blocks at a time. It’s hard to imagine having all of your daily needs completely within walking distance. In New Hampshire I have to drive 5 miles to do anything: rent a movie, buy groceries, shop for clothes, gifts, visit the library, post office, pharmacy, go to restaurants- you name it, I’m in the car to do it. In the city, all of these amenities are within a few blocks at most, and most are within a block of where you live. The infrastructure is completely centered on pedestrian living, not the automobile. What a novel idea!
Like everything in life, there are drawbacks - like always being in contact with people. Country folks may be intimidated by this and be concerned for their personal security. It’s true, everyone practices safe living, but it’s not obsessive, just common sense. I found the people to be widely different, yet completely comfortable with each other. It’s a study in human cooperation we can all take a lesson from. They’re not the stereotypical cold and unfriendly people of folklore – people who show no interest in strangers and never look you the eye. They respect each other’s space - it’s important to do that in a dense community - but they also have a relaxed and confident manner. It comes from being so immersed in other people all the time.
For example, Halloween was celebrated on Halloween- and at night! In the big city no less! It was amazing to see thousands of little urchins walking down the sidewalks, trick or treating at all the stores and the residences. They even had a Halloween Parade in the evening down Seventh Ave. They did all of the things we’re too affraid to do in New Hampshire. Go figure.
So we ate in some great restaurants and small cafes, visited the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, enjoyed taking the dog for a long runs in Prospect Park, became addicted to the freshly baked apple stuffed croissants just around the corner, watched the NY Marathon, all of these things, without ever getting in a car. But most of all we enjoyed seeing so many people living together in a vibrant, harmonious and stimulating environment- a great NY experience!
Here’s a snippet of our visit in Brooklyn (be sure to select HD & Full Screen) : Our visit to Brooklyn
I think city people are healthier than country people. Partly because they walk everywhere, but also because they walk often-- not just once a day, but many times a day for blocks at a time. It’s hard to imagine having all of your daily needs completely within walking distance. In New Hampshire I have to drive 5 miles to do anything: rent a movie, buy groceries, shop for clothes, gifts, visit the library, post office, pharmacy, go to restaurants- you name it, I’m in the car to do it. In the city, all of these amenities are within a few blocks at most, and most are within a block of where you live. The infrastructure is completely centered on pedestrian living, not the automobile. What a novel idea!
Like everything in life, there are drawbacks - like always being in contact with people. Country folks may be intimidated by this and be concerned for their personal security. It’s true, everyone practices safe living, but it’s not obsessive, just common sense. I found the people to be widely different, yet completely comfortable with each other. It’s a study in human cooperation we can all take a lesson from. They’re not the stereotypical cold and unfriendly people of folklore – people who show no interest in strangers and never look you the eye. They respect each other’s space - it’s important to do that in a dense community - but they also have a relaxed and confident manner. It comes from being so immersed in other people all the time.
For example, Halloween was celebrated on Halloween- and at night! In the big city no less! It was amazing to see thousands of little urchins walking down the sidewalks, trick or treating at all the stores and the residences. They even had a Halloween Parade in the evening down Seventh Ave. They did all of the things we’re too affraid to do in New Hampshire. Go figure.
So we ate in some great restaurants and small cafes, visited the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, enjoyed taking the dog for a long runs in Prospect Park, became addicted to the freshly baked apple stuffed croissants just around the corner, watched the NY Marathon, all of these things, without ever getting in a car. But most of all we enjoyed seeing so many people living together in a vibrant, harmonious and stimulating environment- a great NY experience!
Here’s a snippet of our visit in Brooklyn (be sure to select HD & Full Screen) : Our visit to Brooklyn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
