I've been told repeatedly that all politics is local. I don't choose to believe this, because if it's true, it's a depressing indictment of the voters and the people who seek political office. Why? Because it means people vote only for their self-interest and those who seek their vote appeal only to the local vanity and greed. Despite much evidence to the contrary, I'm still naive enough to hope for a degree of statesmanship.
In my opinion, only local politics should be local. National and international issues should be conducted on the national and international level. That means in the interests of all of us. Even people in parts of the world we may not like: it's their planet too.
I used to believe that providing elevation in perspective was the job of the US Senate--until, that is, they started behaving like raccoons. For those who aren't familiar with the habits of the juvenile delinquents of the animal world--just ask anyone who has an outdoor fish pond. Raccoons have a nasty habit of pulling fish out of the pond, taking one bite, leaving the fish to die, and then going back for another--sort of killing for the sport of it.
Lest anyone not see the connection I'm making, this is precisely how the Senate has been behaving and by extension, the Republican side of Congress as a whole. It is full of people, comfortably covered by their cadillac health plans, who don't give a rat's ass about other people declaring bankruptcy over medical bills or struggling to care for senile elders at home; they prefer instead to spend public resources on tax cuts for those who don't need them and provide full employment by sending troops to war.
Oh they make noise about caring about people's physical walfare--but primarily for political gain. That's why the Republicans now vociferously oppose the very same plans they proposed when they were in power. It's all a game: what do we need to say to get reelected? Actually do something---pulllease. If this was a Republican-sponsored plan see how fast the concern for socialism would melt away. Right now, the UK, Australia, and Canada--surely not your average socialist states--are wondering what all the fuss is about. They've been taking care of their citizens' healthcare for generations and haven't slid into moral decay.
Which brings me to another thought. How many of these people spouting anti-socialist rhetoric can even define socialism and distinguish it from fascism, oligarchy, nationalism, and communism? I'll be willing to wager that Ms. Palin can't, yet that won't prevent her from trying to get out in front of the herd and lead them somewhere (maybe to Russia since she has telecopic vision and can see it from her house--I tried this summer at Wasilla, but no such luck).
Well, sorry Peter et al, there is already plenty of precedent for what the health plan proposes. The government already mandates our buying auto insurance. Do you really want to go back to the days before it was required? Drivers have to be licensed to assure some modicum of safety. Do you want to take a chance on who's on the road with you?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Universities and colleges haven't hesitated to comply with federal requirements if it means money. Businesses comply with federal interstate laws, farmers feed at the public trough by holding back production, medical offices comply with FIRPA--it's all around us. Freedom is a complete illusion until, it seems, it hits the wallet and reminds us we live in an interrelated, interdependent world. How big hypocrites are we? Consider that question when people want the government to protect them from Mad Cow Disease entering our food chain, unsafe drugs appearing on our shelves, and unsafe cars filling our showrooms.
In my opinion again (and I write my own stuff instead of regurgitating other people's ideas), we shouldn't be basing our vote on whether a candidate for office supports moving the state fair from Pueblo to Denver. We're better than that. Or if we're not--then let's stop all the bitching about how the government is not keeping criminals behind bars and preventing drug dealers from fighting turf wars on our streets.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
In My Corner, Jack
So they got the first part of health care reform through the house. Good show. But, while it is historic, it is hardly premature. There’s been talk of the need for this for generations, and I even edited the publication of Michael Dukakis’s proposed health reform plan when he was in residence at the University of Hawaii. I left Hawaii in 1993, so that should tell you how long ago that was.
Still, the current plan must be doing something right as no one is pleased. I’m reminded of the song from My Fair Lady where Rex Harrison sings about a quarreling couple: “And rather than do either, they do something else that neither likes at all.” No public option, but loads of good stuff anyway, such as regulating the health insurance industry with its record profits, to whose bleats I can say only that they brought it on themselves just as the financial sectors of this country brought their industry down around their ears.
As far as I am concerned, however, it’s not the health care plan that I am most relieved about. It’s the fact the hate and violence that seem to pass for political discourse on the right did not succeed in derailing the legislation. Had the bill been defeated, we could have looked forward to a generation raised to believe that spitting on legislators, calling them racial slurs, screaming down opponents, and forgetting inconvenient hypocrisy by denying its existence are all acceptable forms of behavior.
As I watched the distorted faces chanting Kill the Bill I was reminded of the disgusting behavior exhibited after the civil rights legislation when whites taunted and menaced black kids entering previously all-white schools. It seemed at the time that the South might go up in flames, yet time passed and the generations after have to be reminded of the struggles leading up to the legislation.
And time does change things. Recently, some of those people back then, whose distorted faces were shown on news television, apologized for their actions. Time has brought clarity. With hindsight and if one wishes to be somewhat charitable, one can say that the sixties were a time of insanity, brought on by uncomfortable social changes.
Today, I suppose we might say we face uncomfortable economic changes. That’s what this is all about—what’s in it for me? If I don’t have a job, what is the government doing taking care of anyone other than me? I feel angry and frustrated and frightened; therefore, I will listen to irresponsible radio figures who sound just as angry and frustrated and frightened as I am, and I will scream and make assassination threats and then –one day—I will look in the mirror and (perhaps) feel ashamed.
The world is not going to end because people earning over $500,000 a year have to bear a tax burden equivalent to what I carry on my comparably miniscule pension. Nor will it end because 32 million more people have the opportunity to purchase (notice: PAY FOR), insurance denied to them because they once had some illness. Nor will it end because 47,000 poor children in Arizona, one of whom has a brain tumor and can’t afford treatment, will get a chance to regain health coverage.
The British have an expression for narcissism and self-absorption: “I’m all right in my corner, Jack,” they say. I can only hope that when people see what is actually in the bill and understand that someone cared enough to get this thing through Congress they won’t give in to the hysteria we can expect in the months ahead.
Still, the current plan must be doing something right as no one is pleased. I’m reminded of the song from My Fair Lady where Rex Harrison sings about a quarreling couple: “And rather than do either, they do something else that neither likes at all.” No public option, but loads of good stuff anyway, such as regulating the health insurance industry with its record profits, to whose bleats I can say only that they brought it on themselves just as the financial sectors of this country brought their industry down around their ears.
As far as I am concerned, however, it’s not the health care plan that I am most relieved about. It’s the fact the hate and violence that seem to pass for political discourse on the right did not succeed in derailing the legislation. Had the bill been defeated, we could have looked forward to a generation raised to believe that spitting on legislators, calling them racial slurs, screaming down opponents, and forgetting inconvenient hypocrisy by denying its existence are all acceptable forms of behavior.
As I watched the distorted faces chanting Kill the Bill I was reminded of the disgusting behavior exhibited after the civil rights legislation when whites taunted and menaced black kids entering previously all-white schools. It seemed at the time that the South might go up in flames, yet time passed and the generations after have to be reminded of the struggles leading up to the legislation.
And time does change things. Recently, some of those people back then, whose distorted faces were shown on news television, apologized for their actions. Time has brought clarity. With hindsight and if one wishes to be somewhat charitable, one can say that the sixties were a time of insanity, brought on by uncomfortable social changes.
Today, I suppose we might say we face uncomfortable economic changes. That’s what this is all about—what’s in it for me? If I don’t have a job, what is the government doing taking care of anyone other than me? I feel angry and frustrated and frightened; therefore, I will listen to irresponsible radio figures who sound just as angry and frustrated and frightened as I am, and I will scream and make assassination threats and then –one day—I will look in the mirror and (perhaps) feel ashamed.
The world is not going to end because people earning over $500,000 a year have to bear a tax burden equivalent to what I carry on my comparably miniscule pension. Nor will it end because 32 million more people have the opportunity to purchase (notice: PAY FOR), insurance denied to them because they once had some illness. Nor will it end because 47,000 poor children in Arizona, one of whom has a brain tumor and can’t afford treatment, will get a chance to regain health coverage.
The British have an expression for narcissism and self-absorption: “I’m all right in my corner, Jack,” they say. I can only hope that when people see what is actually in the bill and understand that someone cared enough to get this thing through Congress they won’t give in to the hysteria we can expect in the months ahead.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Appeasement
Why am I getting the feeling that the Obama is behaving like Chamberlain when he sought peace in our time from Hitler?
Could it be because Obama is trying to negotiate with fanatics who hate us as much as the Nazi’s did? Who see negotiation as blood in the water? Who believe that the poor and the sick deserve all they get because if they were worth tuppence, God would have rewarded them just like the corporate bosses?
Could it be because I am currently in Palm Springs, the original American version of let them eat cake and if they can’t afford to play here, well, piss on them.
I am sitting in a resort where the tariff is over $300 a night ($99 last minute on Travelocity). It’s pretty, Italianate, and pricey—the banquet tonight is $110 per person and will undoubtedly be palatable but unspectacular. That’s the careless way it goes when expenses can be deducted. Today at lunch, one of the medical professionals gathering here held forth on how superior the American medical system is (ranked 37th in the world and behind Costa Rica?) and why a public plan (like Medicare, which they are all on and enjoying) would yield substandard care. I replied, “It would be better than nothing, which is what millions of Americans now have.” He looked shocked. I don’t know whether it was because I had the temerity to speak up or whether he simply hadn’t considered the point.
Obama’s problem is that he expects these resort denizens to give up something for the public good. That’s not what it’s about in this modern America of ours. It’s everyone for themselves and those that have despise those who haven’t. This viewpoint curls around the edges of the Republican positions. It’s not even that they oppose something because the Democrats propose it. It’s because they oppose anything threatening the comfortable niches that have carved out.
I really can’t blame them for wanting to keep the privileges they undoubtedly feel they have earned, Palm Springs among them. After all, once the herd moves into town with trailer parks, fast food, and cheap, carnival thrills –there goes the neighborhood. If there is a public option, after all, more of these (usually) minorities might even live longer and what would we do with the surplus population?
As I say, I can understand the self-protection of these individuals, but at the same time, this is not the behavior I expect of my government. The government of this country was designed to be a system of checks and balances. Obama has forgotten that in his Hawaii-based, Asian philosophy. Checks and balances are by nature confrontational. They have to be. He needs to take a stand for what he knows in his heart is right before he squanders any more of the people’s support who put him in the White House.
I, for one, need a clear call to action from him or else I might as well say to hell with it and go have a cocktail at the pool.
Could it be because Obama is trying to negotiate with fanatics who hate us as much as the Nazi’s did? Who see negotiation as blood in the water? Who believe that the poor and the sick deserve all they get because if they were worth tuppence, God would have rewarded them just like the corporate bosses?
Could it be because I am currently in Palm Springs, the original American version of let them eat cake and if they can’t afford to play here, well, piss on them.
I am sitting in a resort where the tariff is over $300 a night ($99 last minute on Travelocity). It’s pretty, Italianate, and pricey—the banquet tonight is $110 per person and will undoubtedly be palatable but unspectacular. That’s the careless way it goes when expenses can be deducted. Today at lunch, one of the medical professionals gathering here held forth on how superior the American medical system is (ranked 37th in the world and behind Costa Rica?) and why a public plan (like Medicare, which they are all on and enjoying) would yield substandard care. I replied, “It would be better than nothing, which is what millions of Americans now have.” He looked shocked. I don’t know whether it was because I had the temerity to speak up or whether he simply hadn’t considered the point.
Obama’s problem is that he expects these resort denizens to give up something for the public good. That’s not what it’s about in this modern America of ours. It’s everyone for themselves and those that have despise those who haven’t. This viewpoint curls around the edges of the Republican positions. It’s not even that they oppose something because the Democrats propose it. It’s because they oppose anything threatening the comfortable niches that have carved out.
I really can’t blame them for wanting to keep the privileges they undoubtedly feel they have earned, Palm Springs among them. After all, once the herd moves into town with trailer parks, fast food, and cheap, carnival thrills –there goes the neighborhood. If there is a public option, after all, more of these (usually) minorities might even live longer and what would we do with the surplus population?
As I say, I can understand the self-protection of these individuals, but at the same time, this is not the behavior I expect of my government. The government of this country was designed to be a system of checks and balances. Obama has forgotten that in his Hawaii-based, Asian philosophy. Checks and balances are by nature confrontational. They have to be. He needs to take a stand for what he knows in his heart is right before he squanders any more of the people’s support who put him in the White House.
I, for one, need a clear call to action from him or else I might as well say to hell with it and go have a cocktail at the pool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)