What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…or so Juliet surmised as she thought desperately on how to get the man without the family. Despite the truth of Shakespeare’s line - that the name of things doesn’t matter, only what things are – the words we introduce into our lexicon can evolve into a being of their own, which may ultimately have little resemblance to the way things are.
Human conflict has no recorded beginning. The use of language to describe conflict is probably as varied as the conflicts themselves. The etymology of the English word War is only about a millennia old and for most of that period the use of the word as a noun has been pretty consistent. Simply stated it is used to describe military conflict between organized societies. Rarely did the civilian element of societies actively participate. Much of recorded history over these past 1000 years has been framed by these conflicts as periods of significant change, often brought about by the conflicts themselves.
Such is not the only use of the term War. War is frequently used as an adjective relating to items or behavior connected with conflict; war-paint, war-dance, war crime, war chest, war weary, and so forth. However, something has changed regarding “war” in America over the past century, and the past 60 years in particular. It is the result of success, the speed of information, and the desire to persuade through the merchandizing of fear. It probably has no precedent.
World War I ended in 1918. It was not good experience for our relatively young Republic. Called The Great War and The War to End All Wars, the US was only in the conflict for just over a year and yet the losses were horrific, both through military casualties and, especially, disease. It was so unpopular that following it a new isolationism kept Woodrow Wilson from entering the US into the League of Nations, which he created. This did not stop, however, a growing Romantic conclusion over the years that America had essentially cleaned up the European mess, a partial truth at best.
The end of World War II was considerably different for the American population as a whole, but it built on the Romance. The success of that conflict which ended with the United States displaying powers that no other nation had (nuclear weapons) turned the attitudes of the general population toward War into something new. Not only was WWII glorified, it colored the attitudes of past conflicts, including WWI. The word War, as a noun, took on a new meaning. Instead of representing conflict it began to represent an ethical state of being.
The affect of this change in the use of the term has been profound and insidious. For this nation, after WWII the concept of War was like mainlining heroin. The high was too great, however with each successive injection the outcome became worse. The United States, more than any other nation, has become a War junkie.
Although undeclared, as required under our Constitution, the major military engagements since World War II - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq - have increasingly resembled something other than War although each has been named as such. The Iraq invasion in particular resulted in a protracted hostile occupation eight times the length of WWI and yet it was one in which we labeled as a War throughout…war against who?
It is not hard to see that nearly every time our leaders, public and private, have been faced with social issues they have applied the term and mass marketed it; the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terrorism, or how about the War on Cancer, and the War on Pollution. There are of course the Cola Wars and even a War on Christmas, which Conservatives tag to the alleged liberal-Jewish media. The word come to represent how the nation should deal with issues…but how is that bad?
The use of the word War in all these cases, including the military conflicts, is sinister. It lures people into supporting the underlying motives of the originators, but in nearly all cases the conclusion to the “War” is not part of the equation. Historically, wars ended with a winner and a loser, even if the particulars of that ending were negotiated. With the new wars there really is no winner or loser. Does Cancer win or lose? Does Crime win or lose? In Iraq and Vietnam did we win or lose? The Korean War is still in effect, 60 years later. There is no winning or losing in all these cases because there is only the conflict itself.
The reason this is bad is because the new Romantic concept of War inhibits any productive action on the issue. There is only slugging it toward a mythical victory. The War on Drugs, for example, has cost more than most other wars (military or otherwise) and imprisoned many more people than all the American prisoners of war in all America’s military engagements combined. Yet because it is a War, those who are bent on some kind of declared victory are unable to address the real human condition and how to improve it. So the “War” goes on and on. How are we doing so far?
There is not an ounce of common sense that justifies a War on Terrorism. You might as well call it a War on Fear. As such America will remain terrorized with no end, and the politicians who trade on that fear will continue to remain in power. How easy would it have been for George W. Bush to invade Iraq and impose the Patriot Act if, instead of a War on Terrorism, we simply became part of an international effort to reduce and neutralize terrorists around the world?
War by any other name would not smell the same. In fact the word stinks. It is time to end the pursuit of “glory”… and the addiction.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Hang 'em High
Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican pack of Presidential contenders embraced a new line of contention in their December 15th debate. At least it was one I hadn’t previously noticed. They did so in a way that displayed both an eerie pandering to right-wing social interests and an embarrassing ignorance of just how our particular form of government works. I refer to their attack on our third branch of government – the Judiciary.
Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:
"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."
I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?
The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:
"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."
She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.
I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.
The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.
Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:
"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."
I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?
The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:
"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."
She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.
I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.
The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Crazy Like a Fox
The Joint Select “Super Committee” is expected to announce today that they couldn’t do what Congress was unable to do last March. Should ANYBODY be surprised? The major surprise would have been to learn that compromise had been reached, more specifically that the Republicans had allowed it to happen. The outcome was pre-ordained when, in concocting the plan, each party caucus was allowed to pick their representatives for the Committee. You might as well have asked two packs of wolves to equitably split a dead moose. If they had wanted half a chance of succeeding the Republicans should have picked the 6 Democrats for the panel and vice versa.
I absolutely believe, and the anecdotal evidence supports, that the problem is with the Republicans, who determined that they could use this committee, moreover the potential failure of the Committee, as leverage to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. John Kerry in his Meet the Press interview yesterday whined about that fact like a schoolboy complaining that the other kids won’t share the football unless he gives up the key to the candy cupboard - whining has become a forte’ for the Democrats.
The fact of the matter is that for Congressional Republicans, who enjoy the macho, red meat eating, flag saluting, white gridiron image they’ve cultivated, this has become a game. The objective is to lower taxes a la Grover Norquist. All the rest, including discretionary spending, defense, entitlements, regulations, and the size and roll of government is just detail. It could be something played on an Xbox. Instead of Call of Duty, perhaps it might be called Hall of Doodie.
The Republicans want those Bush Tax Cuts made permanent in the worst way, second only to removing Obama as President. They know that once they expire at the end of 2012 they won’t be able to do anything to restore them if Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress. But I can’t help but ask myself why it was allowed to become an issue in the first place.
I was one of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, who was incensed that Obama allowed the extension of the cuts in November 2010. The Republicans had vowed to block all legislation during the lame duck Congress (the last gasp for the Democrat House majority) if the cuts weren’t extended. Obama caved, using the growth/jobs argument as justification. How did that work out? Further, he agreed to extend the cuts till the end of 2012 placing them at ground zero for the 2012 Presidential election. I thought he must be getting ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Just crazy…or so I thought.
But now look what’s happened. Unless the US economy completely tanks during the summer and fall of 2012, even the status quo gives Obama a good shot at winning - depending on who his opponent is. The election itself will become a National referendum on whole issue of revenue, and the Bush Tax Cuts will be the tangible icon for whichever side you’re on. It will be a crystal clear difference between the two candidates. Obama will absolutely say he will veto any extension and the Republican candidate will be forced to support it. Further, the same will be true for most Senate and House seats. The direction of the economy may be the underlying issue, but the yea or nay on the Bush Tax Cuts will be something that the electorate will actually understand.
Republicans may have felt that being on the side of fewer taxes was a fail-safe position. However, perhaps Obama and his handlers had more insight for what was coming down the road. It seems downright foxy with hindsight. The spotlight on the immense increase in economic inequality, a spotlight that Republicans fondly call Class Warfare, works to the Democrats advantage. If that issue has 10 months of life to it, and it should, the idea of increased taxes for the wealthy will not be hard for the general populous to support. If there is to be a solution to the gridlock in Washington, which the American people can no long stomach, the easiest way for the 99% to deal with it will be to vote the 1% to pony up a few more bucks.
I absolutely believe, and the anecdotal evidence supports, that the problem is with the Republicans, who determined that they could use this committee, moreover the potential failure of the Committee, as leverage to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. John Kerry in his Meet the Press interview yesterday whined about that fact like a schoolboy complaining that the other kids won’t share the football unless he gives up the key to the candy cupboard - whining has become a forte’ for the Democrats.
The fact of the matter is that for Congressional Republicans, who enjoy the macho, red meat eating, flag saluting, white gridiron image they’ve cultivated, this has become a game. The objective is to lower taxes a la Grover Norquist. All the rest, including discretionary spending, defense, entitlements, regulations, and the size and roll of government is just detail. It could be something played on an Xbox. Instead of Call of Duty, perhaps it might be called Hall of Doodie.
The Republicans want those Bush Tax Cuts made permanent in the worst way, second only to removing Obama as President. They know that once they expire at the end of 2012 they won’t be able to do anything to restore them if Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress. But I can’t help but ask myself why it was allowed to become an issue in the first place.
I was one of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, who was incensed that Obama allowed the extension of the cuts in November 2010. The Republicans had vowed to block all legislation during the lame duck Congress (the last gasp for the Democrat House majority) if the cuts weren’t extended. Obama caved, using the growth/jobs argument as justification. How did that work out? Further, he agreed to extend the cuts till the end of 2012 placing them at ground zero for the 2012 Presidential election. I thought he must be getting ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Just crazy…or so I thought.
But now look what’s happened. Unless the US economy completely tanks during the summer and fall of 2012, even the status quo gives Obama a good shot at winning - depending on who his opponent is. The election itself will become a National referendum on whole issue of revenue, and the Bush Tax Cuts will be the tangible icon for whichever side you’re on. It will be a crystal clear difference between the two candidates. Obama will absolutely say he will veto any extension and the Republican candidate will be forced to support it. Further, the same will be true for most Senate and House seats. The direction of the economy may be the underlying issue, but the yea or nay on the Bush Tax Cuts will be something that the electorate will actually understand.
Republicans may have felt that being on the side of fewer taxes was a fail-safe position. However, perhaps Obama and his handlers had more insight for what was coming down the road. It seems downright foxy with hindsight. The spotlight on the immense increase in economic inequality, a spotlight that Republicans fondly call Class Warfare, works to the Democrats advantage. If that issue has 10 months of life to it, and it should, the idea of increased taxes for the wealthy will not be hard for the general populous to support. If there is to be a solution to the gridlock in Washington, which the American people can no long stomach, the easiest way for the 99% to deal with it will be to vote the 1% to pony up a few more bucks.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Longing to be Sunk in the Middle
There is an old Lithuanian proverb that says “the older the bed, the closer the couple”. Actually…I just made that up, but old world proverbs – let’s face it - sound better than blogging bromides. The message is a good one nevertheless. Old mattresses worn in the center bring people together and if a couple wants to get some productive sleep they’d better work it out.
There is a construction currently today in America which has built a national mattress with a big lump in the middle. It seems that when too many American’s get into bed they involuntarily roll to one side or the other. It also seems that too many are oblivious to how they got there. Their time is spent primarily on tugging the blankets with those who have rolled to the opposite side.
Once again I’m reminded of one of my conservative friends, retired from business and now a part-time Methodist minister. In political discussions I have had with him, when faced with the inability to answer a point, he falls back on a simple axiom: whatever government does it screws up. He never really expands on what “government” means – Federal, State, Local, homeowners association, or all of the above? Given his fundamental conclusions he finds comfortable consistency from the ravings of (such as) Glenn Beck, who he loves, and therefore is content to be on his side of the bed…although he probably doesn’t get much sleep.
The blanket that he perceives being pulled back and forth is (to him) clearly labeled Capitalism on his side and Socialism on the other. Conservative talk personalities have successfully been able to link as synonymous the terms Liberal and Socialist for their audience, inferring of course that Socialism is just an anagram of the term Communism. They present it as if it was a secret puzzle that is completely obvious for the pure of heart: those pesky liberals are just Communists in disguise. Whipping the blanket to one side goes well beyond practicality. It becomes a duty. Of course it ignores their inherent conclusion that presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton and even Eisenhower, to a great degree, were all closet Communists.
The radical Right wing Conservatives have been successful in attaching “ism” to the word “social”. In doing so they have made the necessity we all have of coexisting into an economic system that they proclaim is a direct competitor of Capitalism (or its friendly synonym: Free Enterprise).
Free Enterprise is not only the critical underpinning of the American economy, it has proven (to my satisfaction anyway) to be the underpinning of the World’s successful economies and has done so by clear testing – the most recent being the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic structure. Freedom works, and I have never heard an American economist or politician of any persuasion state anything to the contrary.
However, Republicans would have you believe that our social organization (i.e. Government) is an obstacle to Capitalism. Therein lays my friend’s black and white political/economic philosophy: business good – government bad. Yet it is absurd to think of Capitalism in a utopian fashion. Slavery works just fine in a Capitalistic model, so does child labor, or 70 hour work weeks. The entire concept of a middle class (as we hear used by politicians like it was comprised of nothing but mothers and babies) is not necessary within a capitalistic model for it to be viewed as successful. Poverty generally works against Capitalism as consumption is critical, but losing a fringe of the population to deprivation would be reasonable collateral damage. Today the most blaring example of the weakness of Capitalism is our Health Care System, which (for advanced economies) is the last for-profit Health Care System on the planet and yet the most inefficient and ineffective by a wide margin.
The fact of the matter is with 7 billion people now on this planet, 300 million in this country alone, the merging of Capitalism with social goals requires, like never before, an actively participating government to interact and even modify the direction of free economies. Historians and economists would point out that has always been the case, just never so dire - our last financial crisis case in point. When Ron Paul proclaims that things go wrong whenever Government injects itself into our economy, it resonates with many because it contains some truth. That’s especially true as special interests control legislation. However, his Libertarian conclusion (essentially shared by the Tea Party crowd) that the answer is to move to some kind of free rural economy that resembled those days when he was a lone doctor happily taking “chickens” for his labor and that gold is the answer to financial stability and growth, actually moves us toward chaos. It just isn’t the answer in a world of 7 billion. It makes no more sense than the vilification of business by the 99 percenters.
Government, which regardless what Republicans would have you believe is in fact the People, needs to impose its will to include a common good, not just to protect an individual good. That any politician calls any economic program or policy sacrosanct is reason enough to remove them from office, whether it be taxes or Social Security – throw the ideological bums out. Start with Eric Cantor. When folks roll to the center, one blanket works just fine.
There is a construction currently today in America which has built a national mattress with a big lump in the middle. It seems that when too many American’s get into bed they involuntarily roll to one side or the other. It also seems that too many are oblivious to how they got there. Their time is spent primarily on tugging the blankets with those who have rolled to the opposite side.
Once again I’m reminded of one of my conservative friends, retired from business and now a part-time Methodist minister. In political discussions I have had with him, when faced with the inability to answer a point, he falls back on a simple axiom: whatever government does it screws up. He never really expands on what “government” means – Federal, State, Local, homeowners association, or all of the above? Given his fundamental conclusions he finds comfortable consistency from the ravings of (such as) Glenn Beck, who he loves, and therefore is content to be on his side of the bed…although he probably doesn’t get much sleep.
The blanket that he perceives being pulled back and forth is (to him) clearly labeled Capitalism on his side and Socialism on the other. Conservative talk personalities have successfully been able to link as synonymous the terms Liberal and Socialist for their audience, inferring of course that Socialism is just an anagram of the term Communism. They present it as if it was a secret puzzle that is completely obvious for the pure of heart: those pesky liberals are just Communists in disguise. Whipping the blanket to one side goes well beyond practicality. It becomes a duty. Of course it ignores their inherent conclusion that presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton and even Eisenhower, to a great degree, were all closet Communists.
The radical Right wing Conservatives have been successful in attaching “ism” to the word “social”. In doing so they have made the necessity we all have of coexisting into an economic system that they proclaim is a direct competitor of Capitalism (or its friendly synonym: Free Enterprise).
Free Enterprise is not only the critical underpinning of the American economy, it has proven (to my satisfaction anyway) to be the underpinning of the World’s successful economies and has done so by clear testing – the most recent being the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic structure. Freedom works, and I have never heard an American economist or politician of any persuasion state anything to the contrary.
However, Republicans would have you believe that our social organization (i.e. Government) is an obstacle to Capitalism. Therein lays my friend’s black and white political/economic philosophy: business good – government bad. Yet it is absurd to think of Capitalism in a utopian fashion. Slavery works just fine in a Capitalistic model, so does child labor, or 70 hour work weeks. The entire concept of a middle class (as we hear used by politicians like it was comprised of nothing but mothers and babies) is not necessary within a capitalistic model for it to be viewed as successful. Poverty generally works against Capitalism as consumption is critical, but losing a fringe of the population to deprivation would be reasonable collateral damage. Today the most blaring example of the weakness of Capitalism is our Health Care System, which (for advanced economies) is the last for-profit Health Care System on the planet and yet the most inefficient and ineffective by a wide margin.
The fact of the matter is with 7 billion people now on this planet, 300 million in this country alone, the merging of Capitalism with social goals requires, like never before, an actively participating government to interact and even modify the direction of free economies. Historians and economists would point out that has always been the case, just never so dire - our last financial crisis case in point. When Ron Paul proclaims that things go wrong whenever Government injects itself into our economy, it resonates with many because it contains some truth. That’s especially true as special interests control legislation. However, his Libertarian conclusion (essentially shared by the Tea Party crowd) that the answer is to move to some kind of free rural economy that resembled those days when he was a lone doctor happily taking “chickens” for his labor and that gold is the answer to financial stability and growth, actually moves us toward chaos. It just isn’t the answer in a world of 7 billion. It makes no more sense than the vilification of business by the 99 percenters.
Government, which regardless what Republicans would have you believe is in fact the People, needs to impose its will to include a common good, not just to protect an individual good. That any politician calls any economic program or policy sacrosanct is reason enough to remove them from office, whether it be taxes or Social Security – throw the ideological bums out. Start with Eric Cantor. When folks roll to the center, one blanket works just fine.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Feeling the Pain…and Not Much More
In last night’s Republican Presidential Debate, somehow dubbed the Western Republican Presidential Debate (is the West seceding…I hadn’t heard?), Michelle Bachmann directed an answer toward a question about how she, and the other candidates, might deal with the foreclosure problem in the Country. She responded as follows:
"That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house."
"I’m a mom. I talk to these moms."
"I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around."
Congresswoman Bachmann provided this “detailed solution” to the foreclosure issue while managing to produce dewy eyes on the verge of eruption. I’m somehow reminded of a used car salesman selling some junker by directing the buyer’s attention to the nifty radio and shiny hood ornament. Her compatriots and competitors did no better on the question. The whole debate in fact should have been an embarrassment to the Republican Party, if that’s possible.
Trying to convince voters that she feels the pain may garnish some support, but it won’t do a thing toward improving the economy.
The foreclosure issue is truly a critical issue directly relating to the economic “recovery” most politicians tout - with little resolve. As I outlined in my essay It Isn’t About Jobs (Pennyfound, August 22, 2011), producing some predictability to the housing market is a fundamental first step to recovery. It will, along with some increase in real wages, precede any notable drop in unemployment. The Federal Government can do something to speed that process.
The business-created perfect storm of inflated housing values, along with unbridled credit, has resulted in untold numbers of homeowners stuck in houses they can’t sell while paying mortgages based on pre-crisis interest rates. Many, either by choice or necessity, are just walking away from their homes, which they can do because mortgages in this Country are non-recourse. The resulting foreclosures only exacerbate the problem. This is all happening while mortgage interest rates have dropped to historic lows.
Neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has done anything substantive that might address a no-brainer solution to the issue. Obama’s HARP program was a complete failure by it complexity and limitations. If homeowners could refinance their mortgages to current rates (which they can’t do because of the drop in home value and thus their equity), foreclosures would be dramatically curtailed. Disposable income would increase to those most likely to spend it, having a direct effect on the overall economy. Homeowners would feel less pressure to sell (or walk away), having the immediate effect of boosting real estate values…predictability follows. What don’t these politicians get? Well…one does get it.
Currently (and finally) there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 363, introduced by Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) which is specifically directed toward enabling home owners to refinance their mortgages at current rates regardless of the market value of the home. All other criteria for refinancing would remain, such as credit and income, but there would be some reduction in fees. There is practically nothing but upside to this bill. It’s two years late in the making.
Amazingly this bill has received practically no support from either party or the Obama Administration. How is that possible? There is only one set of losers to this effort and I suspect those potential losers are calling the shots. Those who hold the investments created by the current mortgages and are enjoying the high interest rates, for which people are locked into paying, are the potential losers. They also just happen to be the same people, institutions, and corporations that benefited from the fiscal insanity and negligence that created the housing bubble and associated derivatives markets in the first place. Funny how that works; they know such an improvement would hurt their short term bottom line, and that bottom line appears to be one line these politicians won’t cross.
Michelle Bachmann, et al, may want to show American that she can do more than just squeeze out a tear for the people who continue to transfer their meager assets to America’s wealthiest by supporting HR 363. I’m not holding my breath…and neither should the mothers of America.
"That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house."
"I’m a mom. I talk to these moms."
"I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around."
Congresswoman Bachmann provided this “detailed solution” to the foreclosure issue while managing to produce dewy eyes on the verge of eruption. I’m somehow reminded of a used car salesman selling some junker by directing the buyer’s attention to the nifty radio and shiny hood ornament. Her compatriots and competitors did no better on the question. The whole debate in fact should have been an embarrassment to the Republican Party, if that’s possible.
Trying to convince voters that she feels the pain may garnish some support, but it won’t do a thing toward improving the economy.
The foreclosure issue is truly a critical issue directly relating to the economic “recovery” most politicians tout - with little resolve. As I outlined in my essay It Isn’t About Jobs (Pennyfound, August 22, 2011), producing some predictability to the housing market is a fundamental first step to recovery. It will, along with some increase in real wages, precede any notable drop in unemployment. The Federal Government can do something to speed that process.
The business-created perfect storm of inflated housing values, along with unbridled credit, has resulted in untold numbers of homeowners stuck in houses they can’t sell while paying mortgages based on pre-crisis interest rates. Many, either by choice or necessity, are just walking away from their homes, which they can do because mortgages in this Country are non-recourse. The resulting foreclosures only exacerbate the problem. This is all happening while mortgage interest rates have dropped to historic lows.
Neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has done anything substantive that might address a no-brainer solution to the issue. Obama’s HARP program was a complete failure by it complexity and limitations. If homeowners could refinance their mortgages to current rates (which they can’t do because of the drop in home value and thus their equity), foreclosures would be dramatically curtailed. Disposable income would increase to those most likely to spend it, having a direct effect on the overall economy. Homeowners would feel less pressure to sell (or walk away), having the immediate effect of boosting real estate values…predictability follows. What don’t these politicians get? Well…one does get it.
Currently (and finally) there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 363, introduced by Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) which is specifically directed toward enabling home owners to refinance their mortgages at current rates regardless of the market value of the home. All other criteria for refinancing would remain, such as credit and income, but there would be some reduction in fees. There is practically nothing but upside to this bill. It’s two years late in the making.
Amazingly this bill has received practically no support from either party or the Obama Administration. How is that possible? There is only one set of losers to this effort and I suspect those potential losers are calling the shots. Those who hold the investments created by the current mortgages and are enjoying the high interest rates, for which people are locked into paying, are the potential losers. They also just happen to be the same people, institutions, and corporations that benefited from the fiscal insanity and negligence that created the housing bubble and associated derivatives markets in the first place. Funny how that works; they know such an improvement would hurt their short term bottom line, and that bottom line appears to be one line these politicians won’t cross.
Michelle Bachmann, et al, may want to show American that she can do more than just squeeze out a tear for the people who continue to transfer their meager assets to America’s wealthiest by supporting HR 363. I’m not holding my breath…and neither should the mothers of America.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Words of Desperation?
In the news clips of Chris Christie’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Library in California last night there was a woman who spoke what the news story claimed was a general consensus. She emotionally pleaded for the New Jersey Governor to reconsider his decision not to run for President… that she and the entire nation needed him…need him? His inability to emphatically close the door on such a run, as he has previously tried, allowed the news media the following morning to hype uncontrollably about the possibility. What is going on here?
Chris Christie has found his niche. Although clearly more educated and intelligent than Sarah Palin, his background has about the same depth. He has held public office now for 21 months. He has virtually no background or even any record of interest in foreign affairs. His glib, self-deprecating, and often bi-partisan approach to public communication has given him a kind of Will Rogers appeal, someone you can laugh with and trust at the same time. Somehow to desperate moderate-right Republicans this is enough to put him in-charge of the United States and the Free World, damn the details.
Sarah Palin is not likely to run for President (see Pennyfound: Ignoring the Obvious 7/5/09). On a recent interview she indicated running would cramp her style as “a maverick”. She’s smart enough to know that increased public scrutiny holds mostly downside for her, especially in the pocketbook. Chris Christie, as I said earlier, is smarter than Sarah Palin…way smarter. Much of what he has given for reasons not to run is both admirable and impressive. He has said “I’m not ready”, indicated it wasn’t the right time, pointed out his shortcomings, and simply relayed a lack of desire, among other things. He knows he’s a darling of the media that has found a talent in himself to be attractive, but he also knows that 21 months as a governor, 7 years as US Attorney (appointed under questionable circumstances), 3 years as a lobbyist, and some squirrely in and out participation in local politics does not a President make.
I think there could be something more to his decision not to run. As opposed to Sarah Palin who grew up in a conservative Christian, cheerleader, beauty pageant, weather girl kind of environment, Christie developed in the raw middleclass environment characteristic of New York/ New Jersey. The controversies that have surrounded his years both as a local Freeholder (like a county supervisor) and later as US Attorney lead me to consider that the kind of pragmatism he may have embraced is something he’s rather not have dug up and set on the table. If such is true, nobody knows this more than him. He may say that he’s not ready to run for President; however he may actually be saying that he’ll never be ready to run. The Peter Principal argues that people often rise one level above their expertise to their level of incompetence. In Christie’s case, it may be that a Governorship is the last level he can rise before he reaches his level of exposure.
It is a commentary in itself that there are so many who would follow an unknown quantity, or in the case of Sarah Palin an incompetent known quantity, simply because they are desperate for someone to believe in. If there is a lesson in here somewhere it is that leadership contains critical elements that are not intellectual or political. We all intuitively know that right…or do we President Obama?
Chris Christie has found his niche. Although clearly more educated and intelligent than Sarah Palin, his background has about the same depth. He has held public office now for 21 months. He has virtually no background or even any record of interest in foreign affairs. His glib, self-deprecating, and often bi-partisan approach to public communication has given him a kind of Will Rogers appeal, someone you can laugh with and trust at the same time. Somehow to desperate moderate-right Republicans this is enough to put him in-charge of the United States and the Free World, damn the details.
Sarah Palin is not likely to run for President (see Pennyfound: Ignoring the Obvious 7/5/09). On a recent interview she indicated running would cramp her style as “a maverick”. She’s smart enough to know that increased public scrutiny holds mostly downside for her, especially in the pocketbook. Chris Christie, as I said earlier, is smarter than Sarah Palin…way smarter. Much of what he has given for reasons not to run is both admirable and impressive. He has said “I’m not ready”, indicated it wasn’t the right time, pointed out his shortcomings, and simply relayed a lack of desire, among other things. He knows he’s a darling of the media that has found a talent in himself to be attractive, but he also knows that 21 months as a governor, 7 years as US Attorney (appointed under questionable circumstances), 3 years as a lobbyist, and some squirrely in and out participation in local politics does not a President make.
I think there could be something more to his decision not to run. As opposed to Sarah Palin who grew up in a conservative Christian, cheerleader, beauty pageant, weather girl kind of environment, Christie developed in the raw middleclass environment characteristic of New York/ New Jersey. The controversies that have surrounded his years both as a local Freeholder (like a county supervisor) and later as US Attorney lead me to consider that the kind of pragmatism he may have embraced is something he’s rather not have dug up and set on the table. If such is true, nobody knows this more than him. He may say that he’s not ready to run for President; however he may actually be saying that he’ll never be ready to run. The Peter Principal argues that people often rise one level above their expertise to their level of incompetence. In Christie’s case, it may be that a Governorship is the last level he can rise before he reaches his level of exposure.
It is a commentary in itself that there are so many who would follow an unknown quantity, or in the case of Sarah Palin an incompetent known quantity, simply because they are desperate for someone to believe in. If there is a lesson in here somewhere it is that leadership contains critical elements that are not intellectual or political. We all intuitively know that right…or do we President Obama?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Now and Later
My son is “jacked”, or so I am told. My first image is of a car half way through a tire change. I quickly understand, however, that they reference his physique. He’s in good health, works out religiously with his girlfriend, eats “healthy” (as compared with me, certainly), and takes physical risks (sports, weight lifting and such) without much concern. He is 25 and part of an army of young Americans fit or unfit, roughly between the ages of 20 and 35 (between leaving their childhood home and starting their own home with children), who are careening toward a precipice blinded by their own temporary good fortune. They are, for the most part, oblivious to the social and economic meltdown which is health care in the United States. Yet this problem will impact them so directly and in so many ways that their ambivalence leaves them akin to free-range chickens.
America has evolved its health care differently than every other advanced economy in the world. This was a complex evolution with many factors impacting the current state. Some common factors, however, have affected every economy over the past century; such as exponential population growth, exponential advancements in medical science, exponential dissemination of information, and exponential means of communication. With those common underlying dynamics, why is the US model so different… and so inefficient?
One major reason was the outcome of the 2nd World War, later combined with a manic fear of collectivism during the Cold War. With the exception of Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) the US immerged from WWII without devastation. To the contrary, the Country was in better shape than it had been during the prior decade. Further, there was a righteousness that came from victory that persists to this very day. It was perceived, in many ways correctly, as a victory of Free Enterprise, but to question such became unpatriotic (or deemed treasonous as what occurred in the mid-50s, or by such sages as Sarah Palin today).
Where the rest of the world after the War saw major portions of their populations in devastation and without means, the concept of universal health care was both a necessity and consistent with a world view of fallibility. Those countries in Western Europe and the Far East had the ability to conceive a collective approach to health care without deeming such as undemocratic. They intentionally or not were able to view universal health care as liberating. Ironically, the United States, an integral player in the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, helped construct the bureaucracies to support universal health care. Canada, the noted exception, attempted an expanded free-market approach to health care, but facilitated by their parliamentary form of government later found it unworkable abandoned it for the British model.
The for-profit health care system in post-war America meshed nicely with rapidly expanding free-enterprise. The combination of strong organized labor, combined with a shortage of workers, which persisted from 1948 to 1972, health care (via insurance) became a form of invisible compensation. This was an historical accident without precedent (on a large scale), and without any logical argument for its efficiency. Quite the contrary, given the aforementioned dynamics of population, medical science, information, and communication, this system has proven itself to be extraordinarily inefficient. However, for the most part two generations have lived through it and now too many believe that employer covered health care is a natural state of affairs.
The Republicans in Congress, who argue for the status quo like junkyard dogs at the fence, find sympathetic ears by those employed individuals who can’t see their benefits as an actual use of compensation (i.e., something they’re buying). These so-called Conservative politicians wrap patriotism with the most egregious lies about the quality of our health care, exacting support for their position. You cannot have the “greatest health care system in the world” (as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have said countless times) and be 24th in the world for adult mortality and 26th in infant mortality. These politicians are actually fighting for those on the receiving end of the $1.6 trillion transfer that takes place each year - 2 to 4 times that of all other modern nations on a per capita basis. Tragically, the nation eats what it’s being fed. Obama, unable to compete, ends up creating a politically expedient health law which - once he agreed to drop a public option - only entrenches the for-profit system. There’s not much light poking through the clouds.
The young adults in the US today are playing on the tracks and they can’t see the train coming. Before this American health care system becomes unsustainable too many will find themselves and their children under cared for, their lifestyles compromised by huge health care costs, their parents destitute or without legacy, their mobility compromised, their ability to take risk reduced, and their responsibility for the previous generation a near impossible social burden. None of that even includes the anxiety and diminished quality of life that comes from the fear of uncertainty at the most basic of levels - survival. Right now they have little fear; they unconsciously plan on living forever, just as they are doing right now. If they only knew…
America has evolved its health care differently than every other advanced economy in the world. This was a complex evolution with many factors impacting the current state. Some common factors, however, have affected every economy over the past century; such as exponential population growth, exponential advancements in medical science, exponential dissemination of information, and exponential means of communication. With those common underlying dynamics, why is the US model so different… and so inefficient?
One major reason was the outcome of the 2nd World War, later combined with a manic fear of collectivism during the Cold War. With the exception of Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) the US immerged from WWII without devastation. To the contrary, the Country was in better shape than it had been during the prior decade. Further, there was a righteousness that came from victory that persists to this very day. It was perceived, in many ways correctly, as a victory of Free Enterprise, but to question such became unpatriotic (or deemed treasonous as what occurred in the mid-50s, or by such sages as Sarah Palin today).
Where the rest of the world after the War saw major portions of their populations in devastation and without means, the concept of universal health care was both a necessity and consistent with a world view of fallibility. Those countries in Western Europe and the Far East had the ability to conceive a collective approach to health care without deeming such as undemocratic. They intentionally or not were able to view universal health care as liberating. Ironically, the United States, an integral player in the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, helped construct the bureaucracies to support universal health care. Canada, the noted exception, attempted an expanded free-market approach to health care, but facilitated by their parliamentary form of government later found it unworkable abandoned it for the British model.
The for-profit health care system in post-war America meshed nicely with rapidly expanding free-enterprise. The combination of strong organized labor, combined with a shortage of workers, which persisted from 1948 to 1972, health care (via insurance) became a form of invisible compensation. This was an historical accident without precedent (on a large scale), and without any logical argument for its efficiency. Quite the contrary, given the aforementioned dynamics of population, medical science, information, and communication, this system has proven itself to be extraordinarily inefficient. However, for the most part two generations have lived through it and now too many believe that employer covered health care is a natural state of affairs.
The Republicans in Congress, who argue for the status quo like junkyard dogs at the fence, find sympathetic ears by those employed individuals who can’t see their benefits as an actual use of compensation (i.e., something they’re buying). These so-called Conservative politicians wrap patriotism with the most egregious lies about the quality of our health care, exacting support for their position. You cannot have the “greatest health care system in the world” (as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have said countless times) and be 24th in the world for adult mortality and 26th in infant mortality. These politicians are actually fighting for those on the receiving end of the $1.6 trillion transfer that takes place each year - 2 to 4 times that of all other modern nations on a per capita basis. Tragically, the nation eats what it’s being fed. Obama, unable to compete, ends up creating a politically expedient health law which - once he agreed to drop a public option - only entrenches the for-profit system. There’s not much light poking through the clouds.
The young adults in the US today are playing on the tracks and they can’t see the train coming. Before this American health care system becomes unsustainable too many will find themselves and their children under cared for, their lifestyles compromised by huge health care costs, their parents destitute or without legacy, their mobility compromised, their ability to take risk reduced, and their responsibility for the previous generation a near impossible social burden. None of that even includes the anxiety and diminished quality of life that comes from the fear of uncertainty at the most basic of levels - survival. Right now they have little fear; they unconsciously plan on living forever, just as they are doing right now. If they only knew…
Monday, August 22, 2011
It Isn't About Jobs
It has become more than a little annoying to hear politicians proclaim that what we need in this country is jobs. Even worse is when they have to repeat the word, as if they were firing a clip from a rifle; we need jobs…jobs…jobs. Further, they usually finish this proclamation of insight by suggesting a simplistic solution such as building bridges and roads. In an economy which has been service oriented for decades I am struck by an image of laid off teachers, bank tellers, carpet salesmen, and…oh…say…accounting executives, all donning hard hats and heading off to some dilapidated corner of the country to lay asphalt.
Virtually any economist or even broker can tell you that employment is a lagging indicator of the economy. By the time employment improves or declines the factors that have led to the change have probably long been in place. That applies in times of both peace and war, since the steps taken to war usually ratchet up well before the application of resources and employment (Iraq being a notable exception).
The solution is not jobs - that’s the outcome. Maybe I should put it this way: the solution is not jobs…not jobs…not jobs. That’s not to say that public policy cannot have an impact on employment, it’s just that it can’t magically generate employment by some carefully directed expenditures or by somehow increasing the wealth of the top 2% of the nation that already currently owns 50% of our entire National net worth (excluding housing).
With no more rationality than Michelle Bachman saying gas prices will drop below $2 a gallon as soon as she is crowned, our leaders and contenders say whatever it takes to create an image that will garner them support. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (whose most notable Congressional achievement was getting a name approved for a Post Office in Richmond, VA - the Tom Bliley Post Office) is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest running ads reaching most of Virginia television viewers. He is proclaiming himself in the forefront of bringing good jobs to Virginia, even without competition for his Congressional seat. What is he really selling?
Public policy (aka Government) is essential to create the atmosphere in which the American style of Capitalism can thrive. That necessary atmosphere is called predictability, the most important ingredient for investment. The lies the Republican Right deliver endlessly, such as taxes are an inherent evil or that the free market will always do the right thing do nothing but instill fear and exacerbate the deleterious concentration of wealth in the United States. They create confusion because the 298 million people, who own less than 50% of the Nation, are deterred or reluctant to take risk because they don’t know what to count on, what is safe, or what is fair.
Free Market health care may be the single biggest drag on the economy since it transfers huge amounts of assets unproductively, burdens business, and renders workers nearly immobile with fear - and those are the healthy ones. Although Obama touts what he got passed (a massive health insurance reform bill) it has or will do little to elevate the control free market health care has due to the continued high level of uncertainty for the average US citizen. It was his worst failure, followed closing by approving the Bush tax cuts extension.
There are two areas to look for a true turn around in the economy. The first is stabilized real estate values; the second is an increase in real wages. The part of the population that own their own home need to be able to comfortably predict that the value of that home will rise at a more or less constant rate slightly ahead of inflation and that the house they may want to buy will do the same, and all workers need to predict that continued work and accumulated experience will result in increased wages at least slightly better than the rate of inflation.
For public policy to assist in those two areas it needs to trim expenditures, especially internationally, and create revenue (taxes) which will both reduce debt and the disparity in national wealth ownership. The objective is not to make the rich poorer, rather, in an expanding economy, to have the bottom 98% increase their wealth at a much faster rate than the top 2% (which currently is the exact opposite).
It also needs to include simplified regulations (not reduced regulations), the reinstatement of the pay-as-you-go policy (enacted during Clinton’s balanced budget Administration and ended under Bush), and start the process toward a single payer health care system by adding a public option to the current health care law. That creates the atmosphere; the free market will take it from there, and leave the Fed to keep inflation at a minimum with a balanced monetary policy. The jobs will come.
Virtually any economist or even broker can tell you that employment is a lagging indicator of the economy. By the time employment improves or declines the factors that have led to the change have probably long been in place. That applies in times of both peace and war, since the steps taken to war usually ratchet up well before the application of resources and employment (Iraq being a notable exception).
The solution is not jobs - that’s the outcome. Maybe I should put it this way: the solution is not jobs…not jobs…not jobs. That’s not to say that public policy cannot have an impact on employment, it’s just that it can’t magically generate employment by some carefully directed expenditures or by somehow increasing the wealth of the top 2% of the nation that already currently owns 50% of our entire National net worth (excluding housing).
With no more rationality than Michelle Bachman saying gas prices will drop below $2 a gallon as soon as she is crowned, our leaders and contenders say whatever it takes to create an image that will garner them support. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (whose most notable Congressional achievement was getting a name approved for a Post Office in Richmond, VA - the Tom Bliley Post Office) is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest running ads reaching most of Virginia television viewers. He is proclaiming himself in the forefront of bringing good jobs to Virginia, even without competition for his Congressional seat. What is he really selling?
Public policy (aka Government) is essential to create the atmosphere in which the American style of Capitalism can thrive. That necessary atmosphere is called predictability, the most important ingredient for investment. The lies the Republican Right deliver endlessly, such as taxes are an inherent evil or that the free market will always do the right thing do nothing but instill fear and exacerbate the deleterious concentration of wealth in the United States. They create confusion because the 298 million people, who own less than 50% of the Nation, are deterred or reluctant to take risk because they don’t know what to count on, what is safe, or what is fair.
Free Market health care may be the single biggest drag on the economy since it transfers huge amounts of assets unproductively, burdens business, and renders workers nearly immobile with fear - and those are the healthy ones. Although Obama touts what he got passed (a massive health insurance reform bill) it has or will do little to elevate the control free market health care has due to the continued high level of uncertainty for the average US citizen. It was his worst failure, followed closing by approving the Bush tax cuts extension.
There are two areas to look for a true turn around in the economy. The first is stabilized real estate values; the second is an increase in real wages. The part of the population that own their own home need to be able to comfortably predict that the value of that home will rise at a more or less constant rate slightly ahead of inflation and that the house they may want to buy will do the same, and all workers need to predict that continued work and accumulated experience will result in increased wages at least slightly better than the rate of inflation.
For public policy to assist in those two areas it needs to trim expenditures, especially internationally, and create revenue (taxes) which will both reduce debt and the disparity in national wealth ownership. The objective is not to make the rich poorer, rather, in an expanding economy, to have the bottom 98% increase their wealth at a much faster rate than the top 2% (which currently is the exact opposite).
It also needs to include simplified regulations (not reduced regulations), the reinstatement of the pay-as-you-go policy (enacted during Clinton’s balanced budget Administration and ended under Bush), and start the process toward a single payer health care system by adding a public option to the current health care law. That creates the atmosphere; the free market will take it from there, and leave the Fed to keep inflation at a minimum with a balanced monetary policy. The jobs will come.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Are You Happy?
In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned in his declaration the famous “unalienable” or natural human rights that were to be a cornerstone of this Nation’s political philosophy. It wasn’t particularly original. Popular philosophies in the 18th century from men such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson had reflected on similar natural rights of Man, and George Mason had only weeks before written his Virginia Declaration of Rights using a similar phrase. However Jefferson, with Benjamin Franklin’s advice, had substituted the pursuit of happiness for (the pursuit of) property, the word used by such as Mason and Locke. This pursuit of happiness, which has been quoted a billion times in America, both in political and non-political contexts, is a befuddlement to me. The pursuit of property I understand, but just what does happiness mean? Of course the unalienable right is the pursuit, but in a real sense is it the pursuit of something which is actually attainable?
Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?
One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.
How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.
Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.
Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?
If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.
Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?
One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.
How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.
Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.
Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?
If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Consensus Trap
There are over 16 months till the next U.S. Presidential contest and it has already invited itself into the home by television, magazines, internet, radio, telephone, and conversation. Paid anti-Obama TV commercials are airing frequently. It feels like it won’t be long before they’re competing with pharmaceuticals for gross intrusion. Like a warm week in February, I can’t help wondering if this is somehow different than last time, is the hot summer starting early or not?
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Who's Taking Care of Grandma?
Somewhere around Scottsdale, Arizona four senior gentlemen are finishing their putts on the 4th green on an early Tuesday afternoon. It’s sunny…of course. They’re growling about the safety of their Social Security payments and the obvious government conspiracy to take those payments away, probably through taxation. Later after the game they’ll have a couple of beers at the clubhouse, mount their Acuras and ride home to wait on dinner. At the same time, somewhere just outside Columbus, Ohio a couple in their early 70s sit at the kitchen table in their small apartment trying to figure out when they can afford front tires for their 10 year old Sentra. Each golfer (with his wife) receives about $26,000 a year in Social Security, representing 30% of his current income. The Columbus couple receives $15,600 annually which represents 91% of their total income - they worry even more about their Social Security.
Social Security, your politicians explain, is fully funded through…well…a run-out-of-money date, no-viability date, buy-the-ranch date, or whatever date floats, so much so it isn’t worth remembering. Just assume it’s some time out there, so they say, which is also so much horse poopee. The reality is that it isn’t funded at all and hasn’t been as long as this nation has run deficits and accumulated debt. How can that be, you ask? They’ve got that account with those trillions of dollars of bonds in it, that bastion of security – the Social Security Trust Fund!!
The Social Security Trust Fund was born in 1983 because the original concept of Social Security in the 1930s as a pay-as-you-go system was no longer functional. It started well, but ended up bad, I guess when nobody was looking. Benefits currently paid exceeded receipts and when you ran the numbers out over decades of aging workers, they got pretty ugly to look at. Alan Greenspan spearheaded the policy to increase payroll taxes essentially replicating the early years of Social Security when current revenues exceeded current payout, but this time we decided to put the surplus in a nice safe place to fund projected claims as the population grew older. Ergo, the Trust Fund. Moreover, it preserved the concept (dare I say: illusion for the conservatively minded) that Social Security was some kind of paid in retirement plan - not the horrid W-word plan. Of course, this contrived concept was not reality; primarily because the nation’s low tax/ high spend mania could not be abated.
To give you an example of this shell game: say you wanted to fund your own retirement plan, but as luck would have it the idea of doing so would put a crimp into your lifestyle, especially when that lifestyle exceeds your income. But, being sensible and thinking of the future (which was looking pretty bleak), you decide to go ahead and put 10% of your income into your retirement plan account. Then you realize that your flat screen is way too small, the green fees down at the club just went up, you know you’d feel a whole lot safer if you drove a Hummer, and all those plans are in jeopardy because you’d be short on cash. Then you come up with a great idea. You can fund your retirement with IOUs…with interest! Now you’ve got this great retirement plan, with great interest bearing notes in it, you can even pay the interest to yourself with more IOUs, and you still get to buy all that crap you can’t live without. Does it get any better than that? One small problem: when you want to start receiving those nice fat retirement checks, you’ll have to keep working to pay for them.
National debt is simply and purely nothing more than deferred taxes (which includes fees and divestiture of public assets). There is virtually only one way to eliminate debt without the transfer of real assets (taxing), and it’s not default. A nation cannot really default, at least not American style; there is no international Chapter 11. The debt doesn’t go away. People just stop lending you money. The only real way to dodge paying it all back is by devaluing what you owe, i.e. inflation. When a $100,000 Treasury bond buys you one quart of milk the Treasury is pretty much out of debt. As it happens, as a citizen and taxpayer you’re pretty much out of debt as well. Of course, there is also a lot of other really nasty stuff that goes along with that - but let’s not dwell on economic Armageddon.
Social Security (funded through whenever) is comprised then of deferred taxes, essentially the same if there was no Social Security Trust Fund at all. We’d either cover the tab on Social Security (and OASI) by taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations or (as in the current scenario) taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations to pay off the debt - sounds kinda similar to me. Of course we could continue to borrow more and more, but that boat ain’t gonna float...not without taking a broadside from the inflation torpedo.
The only way to deal with Social Security and all so called entitlements in which future benefits are unfunded is to begin to accept what it is and what it has always been since its inception. Someone who bends to the left might call it welfare; someone who bends to the right might call it insurance. It’s the same either way.
Our politicians enacted and we have subsequently accepted that, as a nation, we don’t want people, who because of age or health can no longer work, to be left in the streets to rot in public view. Historically that was actually the case, especially in the early immergence of urban industrialization. Social Security, even with our chest pounding raw dedication to free enterprise, was created during a brief, admirable embrace of humanity. Yet very soon it was subverted into a notion of a personal investment, by those who opposed it from the outset.
Personally I like to call it insurance (does that mean I lean to the Right?). No one can project who is ultimately subject to misfortune. Some perhaps by chance, some by their own hand, but what difference does it make? By paying into a concept of spreading the risk, as we should be doing with healthcare, we cover ourselves, our parents, and our children. With any luck at all we may never need a penny of it, and when that’s the case we shouldn’t get a penny.
The solvency of Social Security should be attained by continually reducing the projected unfunded benefits to those whose needs don’t meet its purpose. There ought to be set target limits on benefits, with benefits providing an honorable lifestyle. Using the Tax Code, Social Security payments should be taxed at rates up to 100% once income reaches and exceeds those levels. There could be some minor means testing of benefits, but it is still reasonable that those who paid in more should still receive higher benefits, since their qualification to receive benefits would presume a greater lifetime drop in living standards.
It should again be pay-as-you-go and be funded through a flat tax, as it currently is, but that tax should not have income limitations. Another dumping on the wealthy, you say? Hardly. The economic and social stability of a society always has and always will benefit the wealthy most. That’s because it increases predictability, which is the cornerstone of investment.
Social Security, your politicians explain, is fully funded through…well…a run-out-of-money date, no-viability date, buy-the-ranch date, or whatever date floats, so much so it isn’t worth remembering. Just assume it’s some time out there, so they say, which is also so much horse poopee. The reality is that it isn’t funded at all and hasn’t been as long as this nation has run deficits and accumulated debt. How can that be, you ask? They’ve got that account with those trillions of dollars of bonds in it, that bastion of security – the Social Security Trust Fund!!
The Social Security Trust Fund was born in 1983 because the original concept of Social Security in the 1930s as a pay-as-you-go system was no longer functional. It started well, but ended up bad, I guess when nobody was looking. Benefits currently paid exceeded receipts and when you ran the numbers out over decades of aging workers, they got pretty ugly to look at. Alan Greenspan spearheaded the policy to increase payroll taxes essentially replicating the early years of Social Security when current revenues exceeded current payout, but this time we decided to put the surplus in a nice safe place to fund projected claims as the population grew older. Ergo, the Trust Fund. Moreover, it preserved the concept (dare I say: illusion for the conservatively minded) that Social Security was some kind of paid in retirement plan - not the horrid W-word plan. Of course, this contrived concept was not reality; primarily because the nation’s low tax/ high spend mania could not be abated.
To give you an example of this shell game: say you wanted to fund your own retirement plan, but as luck would have it the idea of doing so would put a crimp into your lifestyle, especially when that lifestyle exceeds your income. But, being sensible and thinking of the future (which was looking pretty bleak), you decide to go ahead and put 10% of your income into your retirement plan account. Then you realize that your flat screen is way too small, the green fees down at the club just went up, you know you’d feel a whole lot safer if you drove a Hummer, and all those plans are in jeopardy because you’d be short on cash. Then you come up with a great idea. You can fund your retirement with IOUs…with interest! Now you’ve got this great retirement plan, with great interest bearing notes in it, you can even pay the interest to yourself with more IOUs, and you still get to buy all that crap you can’t live without. Does it get any better than that? One small problem: when you want to start receiving those nice fat retirement checks, you’ll have to keep working to pay for them.
National debt is simply and purely nothing more than deferred taxes (which includes fees and divestiture of public assets). There is virtually only one way to eliminate debt without the transfer of real assets (taxing), and it’s not default. A nation cannot really default, at least not American style; there is no international Chapter 11. The debt doesn’t go away. People just stop lending you money. The only real way to dodge paying it all back is by devaluing what you owe, i.e. inflation. When a $100,000 Treasury bond buys you one quart of milk the Treasury is pretty much out of debt. As it happens, as a citizen and taxpayer you’re pretty much out of debt as well. Of course, there is also a lot of other really nasty stuff that goes along with that - but let’s not dwell on economic Armageddon.
Social Security (funded through whenever) is comprised then of deferred taxes, essentially the same if there was no Social Security Trust Fund at all. We’d either cover the tab on Social Security (and OASI) by taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations or (as in the current scenario) taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations to pay off the debt - sounds kinda similar to me. Of course we could continue to borrow more and more, but that boat ain’t gonna float...not without taking a broadside from the inflation torpedo.
The only way to deal with Social Security and all so called entitlements in which future benefits are unfunded is to begin to accept what it is and what it has always been since its inception. Someone who bends to the left might call it welfare; someone who bends to the right might call it insurance. It’s the same either way.
Our politicians enacted and we have subsequently accepted that, as a nation, we don’t want people, who because of age or health can no longer work, to be left in the streets to rot in public view. Historically that was actually the case, especially in the early immergence of urban industrialization. Social Security, even with our chest pounding raw dedication to free enterprise, was created during a brief, admirable embrace of humanity. Yet very soon it was subverted into a notion of a personal investment, by those who opposed it from the outset.
Personally I like to call it insurance (does that mean I lean to the Right?). No one can project who is ultimately subject to misfortune. Some perhaps by chance, some by their own hand, but what difference does it make? By paying into a concept of spreading the risk, as we should be doing with healthcare, we cover ourselves, our parents, and our children. With any luck at all we may never need a penny of it, and when that’s the case we shouldn’t get a penny.
The solvency of Social Security should be attained by continually reducing the projected unfunded benefits to those whose needs don’t meet its purpose. There ought to be set target limits on benefits, with benefits providing an honorable lifestyle. Using the Tax Code, Social Security payments should be taxed at rates up to 100% once income reaches and exceeds those levels. There could be some minor means testing of benefits, but it is still reasonable that those who paid in more should still receive higher benefits, since their qualification to receive benefits would presume a greater lifetime drop in living standards.
It should again be pay-as-you-go and be funded through a flat tax, as it currently is, but that tax should not have income limitations. Another dumping on the wealthy, you say? Hardly. The economic and social stability of a society always has and always will benefit the wealthy most. That’s because it increases predictability, which is the cornerstone of investment.
Monday, February 7, 2011
My Pool
I hated my pool.
I didn’t want it, it came
With the house, laying in the
Back yard like an old
Slobbering dog, exacting
Squeals of delight from my
Young children, humming and
Gurgling a ditty of “feed me
With your fortune” and “caress
Me with your time”.
And I relented,
Seduced by images
Of shared joy and clear, warm
Nights where light breezes
Cool my wet hair and I am
Near weightless of care. But
The years passed and I did not
Count on the winters, the
Fallout of nature’s endless
Cycle of death to life and
Back to death again. And I,
Immersed in the struggle to
Keep the waters clear, felt no
Longer capable of finding the
Delicate balance between a
Chemistry of desire and the
Tension that suspends debris
In places I could hardly reach.
I wanted to cover it, permanently,
Or fill it with something
That blended with the landscape.
Perhaps become a place
Where I could plant seeds, seeds
That said “feed me with your
Fortune” and “caress me with your
Time and I will grow for you”.
And in the spring, I did.
With great machines and trucks
Of dirt, it vanished from sight.
It no longer waits to be cleaned and
The shriveled brown leaves of fall
Blow across it unhindered.
It is gone, or good as gone.
Even if the wet earth of winter
Sinks ever so slightly in what was
The deep end.
I didn’t want it, it came
With the house, laying in the
Back yard like an old
Slobbering dog, exacting
Squeals of delight from my
Young children, humming and
Gurgling a ditty of “feed me
With your fortune” and “caress
Me with your time”.
And I relented,
Seduced by images
Of shared joy and clear, warm
Nights where light breezes
Cool my wet hair and I am
Near weightless of care. But
The years passed and I did not
Count on the winters, the
Fallout of nature’s endless
Cycle of death to life and
Back to death again. And I,
Immersed in the struggle to
Keep the waters clear, felt no
Longer capable of finding the
Delicate balance between a
Chemistry of desire and the
Tension that suspends debris
In places I could hardly reach.
I wanted to cover it, permanently,
Or fill it with something
That blended with the landscape.
Perhaps become a place
Where I could plant seeds, seeds
That said “feed me with your
Fortune” and “caress me with your
Time and I will grow for you”.
And in the spring, I did.
With great machines and trucks
Of dirt, it vanished from sight.
It no longer waits to be cleaned and
The shriveled brown leaves of fall
Blow across it unhindered.
It is gone, or good as gone.
Even if the wet earth of winter
Sinks ever so slightly in what was
The deep end.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care...?
…“Does anybody see what I see?” Those are lines in a song from the 1969 Broadway musical 1776. The actor playing John Adams sings this soliloquy lamenting why members of the Continental Congress can’t see what is so obvious to him, namely the need for independence from Great Britain. There are times when any of us might arrive at a conclusion that seems both obviously correct and contrarian at the same time. Later, more often than not, additional information can have us viewing things differently, perhaps even causing a touch of chagrin. Don’t you hate that, when things appeared so certain?
I currently find myself burdened by such a view and have seriously struggled to find reasons why that view might not be correct. I haven’t found any…at least not yet. I’m talking about Health Care in America. I have written about it previously, but, frankly, it cannot be brought up enough. It is the single most import issue in the United States today, because it impacts so many aspects of life simultaneously.
Yet even then it wouldn’t work effectively or efficiently. There is nothing in a for-profit health care system that can control the cost because, in economic terms, there is almost no elasticity in demand. That means individual demand for health care services does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Total demand might drop simply because people can no longer afford health care, fall out of the system and die, but for those paying with their remaining assets the costs would continue to spiral up. The whole concept is not self-sustaining and it is ripping apart the fabric of our nation. Does anybody care?
A young person might ask what is so different now compared to decades past…a lot actually. First and most critical, the population of the United States has more than tripled in the last 100 years. Modern medicine as we know it now is relatively new. The technological changes that have transformed medicine (micro biology, pharmaceuticals, genetics, and numerous others, for example) have mostly occurred during the lives of living generations.
I currently find myself burdened by such a view and have seriously struggled to find reasons why that view might not be correct. I haven’t found any…at least not yet. I’m talking about Health Care in America. I have written about it previously, but, frankly, it cannot be brought up enough. It is the single most import issue in the United States today, because it impacts so many aspects of life simultaneously.
It is the single biggest expenditure for the Nation’s people, dwarfing Defense. It’s the single biggest hindrance for freedom to seek employment. It is possibly the most inefficient system of any kind (based on size) in the history of modern man. It’s the single biggest inhibitor for small business expansion. It is a major cause of disabling anxiety for the middle class. It is the single biggest transfer of wealth in the history of this Country…or any other country. I’m not making this up. Currently $1.8 trillion annually comes out of your pocket (directly, in taxes, public debt – which is only deferred taxes - or for you by your employer) and ends up…well, somewhere else.
Yet the negative nature of this system in its entirety is nearly oblivious to large segments of our population. More amazingly, there are segments which have been convinced to actively support this System against their own best interest.
The wealthy can self-insure and since they are (unwittingly or not) the beneficiaries of the transfer they are hardly inclined to admit what is happening. Their surrogates in Congress will repeat that we have the best health care system in the world, over and over. The employed insured are annoyed but at the same time blinded by not being able to understand the true cost of what they’re paying. The poor have little incentive, because they can tap into existing welfare and have little (materially) to lose. The elderly actively resist change because they already receive universal coverage and are frightened by those who say change will take that away. The young (those say 18 to 30) for the most part are comatose on the subject, primarily kept unconscious by their natural good health.
The opinion of the wealthy will not change; moreover they will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo. The employed insured, most notably working Conservatives, will not challenge the System, unable to recognize their own deleterious behavior, even as they unload every bullet they have into their own feet. They are too malleable by use of fear. It is for the youth of America that I’m writing this piece. They are the only ones who can effect change and they are ones paying the price right now, by the accumulation of extraordinary debt and lost opportunities. They should be shouting from the roof tops or stampeding in the streets. Is anybody there?
The universal dispensation of health care cannot exist in a large modern economy today as a for-profit, free enterprise system…period. It might appear to work if you’re willing to give up the universality. You’d have to let a segment of your economy go without health care regardless of their desire to get it. More metaphorically, you have to let people die in the streets, so to speak.0
Yet the negative nature of this system in its entirety is nearly oblivious to large segments of our population. More amazingly, there are segments which have been convinced to actively support this System against their own best interest.
The wealthy can self-insure and since they are (unwittingly or not) the beneficiaries of the transfer they are hardly inclined to admit what is happening. Their surrogates in Congress will repeat that we have the best health care system in the world, over and over. The employed insured are annoyed but at the same time blinded by not being able to understand the true cost of what they’re paying. The poor have little incentive, because they can tap into existing welfare and have little (materially) to lose. The elderly actively resist change because they already receive universal coverage and are frightened by those who say change will take that away. The young (those say 18 to 30) for the most part are comatose on the subject, primarily kept unconscious by their natural good health.
The opinion of the wealthy will not change; moreover they will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo. The employed insured, most notably working Conservatives, will not challenge the System, unable to recognize their own deleterious behavior, even as they unload every bullet they have into their own feet. They are too malleable by use of fear. It is for the youth of America that I’m writing this piece. They are the only ones who can effect change and they are ones paying the price right now, by the accumulation of extraordinary debt and lost opportunities. They should be shouting from the roof tops or stampeding in the streets. Is anybody there?
The universal dispensation of health care cannot exist in a large modern economy today as a for-profit, free enterprise system…period. It might appear to work if you’re willing to give up the universality. You’d have to let a segment of your economy go without health care regardless of their desire to get it. More metaphorically, you have to let people die in the streets, so to speak.0
Yet even then it wouldn’t work effectively or efficiently. There is nothing in a for-profit health care system that can control the cost because, in economic terms, there is almost no elasticity in demand. That means individual demand for health care services does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Total demand might drop simply because people can no longer afford health care, fall out of the system and die, but for those paying with their remaining assets the costs would continue to spiral up. The whole concept is not self-sustaining and it is ripping apart the fabric of our nation. Does anybody care?
A young person might ask what is so different now compared to decades past…a lot actually. First and most critical, the population of the United States has more than tripled in the last 100 years. Modern medicine as we know it now is relatively new. The technological changes that have transformed medicine (micro biology, pharmaceuticals, genetics, and numerous others, for example) have mostly occurred during the lives of living generations.
Further, historically through most of the 20th century, the practice of medicine was mostly non-profit. Most doctors worked independently in conjunction with hospitals that were publicly or charitably owned. The massive change toward capitalization of health care with the rise of professional corporations and huge hospital corporations has taken place mostly over the past 30 years. The bones of the beast became the medical insurance corporations, and the life blood of the beast is debt, public and private.
No other large advanced economy in the world has had this experience. Universal public health care in Europe and Asia is as old as the medical industrial complex is in the United States, most originating in their current form just after World War 2. Canada tried the American approach but soon realized the obvious and converted to universal public health care in the early 60s.
No other large advanced economy in the world has had this experience. Universal public health care in Europe and Asia is as old as the medical industrial complex is in the United States, most originating in their current form just after World War 2. Canada tried the American approach but soon realized the obvious and converted to universal public health care in the early 60s.
Now Americans pay multiples of what other modern economies pay, on a per capita basis, for health care that barely rates above third world countries for the nation as a whole. And even with all these resources spent, the fear of being turned out on the streets by the insurance companies due to a job change, or contracting a disease, or having an accident, and end up running out of assets pervades the middle class like a perpetual black cloud. Can anybody see what I see?
There should be a revolution between the young people of American against those who are on the receiving end of that annual $1.8 trillion transfer. When Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor endlessly repeat the phrase “government takeover of health care” to describe the recent health care law (that only modestly modified the health care insurance industry) they are using fear to maintain the status quo.
There should be a revolution between the young people of American against those who are on the receiving end of that annual $1.8 trillion transfer. When Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor endlessly repeat the phrase “government takeover of health care” to describe the recent health care law (that only modestly modified the health care insurance industry) they are using fear to maintain the status quo.
Such should be heard as clarion call for American youth to demonstrate against the hypocrisy. Young people did it during the Vietnam War because they felt personally at risk. Well…they’re at risk now, as we all are. But the youth of America will bear the brunt of the disaster, the longer they wait to show up and open their eyes.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Lip Dancing
Last Sunday David Gregory interviewed the Nation’s new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Meet the Press. I was pleasantly surprised to see him appropriately aggressive in trying to extract answers from Leader Cantor. It’s not that the responses Cantor provided were notably more off point than many other politicians might deliver. It was simply more noticeable to me because I was listening - primarily because I happen to live in the District which has the ignominious honor of placing Cantor in Office.
Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:
MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.
MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?
MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."
REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.
MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR: David...
MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.
MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.
MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?
REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.
MR. GREGORY: Like what?
REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?
MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?
REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.
MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?
REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.
MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.
REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?
MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?
REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…
MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.
REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.
MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…
MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?
REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.
MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?
REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?
REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.
MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...
MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?
REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.
REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Period.
REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?
REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.
MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?
MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.
REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.
Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:
MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.
MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?
MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."
REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.
MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR: David...
MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.
MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.
MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?
REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.
MR. GREGORY: Like what?
REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?
MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?
REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.
MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?
REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.
MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.
REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?
MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?
REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…
MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.
REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.
MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…
MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?
REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.
MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?
REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?
REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.
MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...
MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?
REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.
REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Period.
REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?
REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.
MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?
MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.
REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Game of Concentration
Sunday I successfully managed to absorb the better part of six hours watching the professional football conference championships. The previous weekend I could claim nearly double that amount of time watching four playoff games. As a football game is only 60 minutes, which includes much of the players standing around time, huddling, and forming at the line of scrimmage, etc., it makes one wonder just what holds my attention so well? Now I like pro football a lot, and there are numerous moments of excitement or potential excitement in every game…but six hours is six hours.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Irresistibly Dumb
For about 25 years, with some minor gaps in time, I have had a full beard. For no particular reason every 7 or 8 years I might shave it off for a brief period or modify it in some fashion. Each time I would be fascinated that, upon arriving at my office, people who worked closely with me would not initially notice its absence. Conversely, those I saw infrequently would pipe right up and usually register an exclamation of sorts (maybe fright). My wife once went weeks without grasping that I had reduced my full beard down to a goatee, only realizing it when my daughter arrived from out of town and pointed it out. “Did you do that this morning?” she observed matter-of-factly. “No dear…3 weeks ago”. “Oh…”
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Monday, January 10, 2011
It Isn't About the Fringe
The fact that Christine Taylor Green was born on September 11, 2001 is purely coincidental to the tragedy that took her life in Tucson, Arizona. And yet the relevance of those two events is so compelling that it is difficult not to think of the end of her short life as some kind of dark metaphor.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
