Recently in Politics Category

After watching all of the health care coverage on television of late, and after having watched television news shows for decades, I am trying to figure out when the age of 'Punditry' arrived.

I seem to recall watching television news when I was a child, and reporters would do their jobs... they would report. I don't recall too much punditry at that time, except for the occasional 'expert' or 'analyst' when a huge event was unfolding, like the murders at the 1972 Winter Olympics, or the Iran Hostage Crisis. Now all that you see on television news shows are analysts and pundits telling you what to think. It's not just limited to television, of course. Daytime radio is filled with political pundits regurgitating the week's events with their own added spin, as well.

What bothers me most about this, is that people are surrendering their ability to think for themselves, to the talking heads. Why would anyone do that? I appreciate the fact that I was taught to think for myself, and value my right to free speech. I enjoy expressing myself while debating with others, and have no interest in doing anything other than forming my own opinions based on the facts at hand. If I'm out of my league, then I default to my guru of choice, but only after finding ones who are what my friend David would call Expert Practitioners.

But perhaps people are not actually surrendering their ability to think for themselves. It seems as though people are no longer being taught decision-making, and critical thinking skills, so their only choice is to let other people do their thinking for them. This is a frightening concept, because if people can no longer think clearly, for themselves, what hope for Democracy is there?

The following is one of my favorite quotations on this topic. I think it perfectly expresses what I am feeling right now:

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."

  --Noam Chomsky

I'm almost tired of talking about health care at this point, but now seems to be shaping up as the most crucial point to be involved. Conservative forces opposed to a Public Option seem to be losing some momentum, and progressive forces seem to be applying lots of pressure. This is all fantastic, but I'm still having trouble even understanding how anyone could argue against some sort of strong Public Option, in the first place. If I've said it once, I've said it one hundred times: I'm still waiting to hear a single convincing argument against a Public Option.

The saddest part of this whole debate is just how strong the propaganda against a Public Option really is. I was chatting with a friend the other day, and he was telling me how his young daughter had broken her wrist, and when all was said and done he expected that he was going to have to pay about $3000 out of pocket to cover all of the medical expenses, because he doesn't have health care, and his daughter is no longer eligible for that state's child health insurance program. Astonishingly, not sixty seconds later, when I mentioned having some sort of Public Option, he immediately regurgitated one of the many lies that the right-wing is spreading on behalf of the private insurance companies. How is it possible that you could argue against your own self interests in that way? I just don't get it. He had just gotten through complaining to me about having to pay $3000, of money that he doesn't have, to take care of the medical expenses. Ay carumba.

This reminds of a time in the eighties, when Reagan had been redistributing the wealth to the richest elites with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. In general, capitalists seemed to get more greedy, and capitalism started to be practiced in a much more mercenary manner. Corporations began to bust unions, lower wages, reduce benefits, and lay people off. I remember hearing talk at family functions from many people who had union jobs about how good it was that this was happening, while repeating the corporate mantra as evidence. You know, those vague slogans like, "We need to make America more competitive!" Just exactly how is America "more competitive" now that they have moved all of our manufacturing over seas, and we've become an economically crippled nation of unemployed people?

That people believe in these Orwellian slogans, illogic and lies really does drive me crazy. The frustration is such that were I actually beating my head against the wall, I would have real problems since I am one of the millions who currently does not have health care.

I have been thinking a lot in the last twelve hours about Rep. Alan Grayson (D, Fla), his use of the word 'holocaust' on the floor of the US House of Representatives, and Rachel Maddow's having called him to task about it on her program.

I consider myself to be an absolutist on free speech. I believe that free speech allows us to pick and choose from the lexicon of words to achieve the kind of subtlety, lack thereof, or nuance that we want. However, living in a free society also means that others are free to criticize you for your choices, and I recognize that.

Many people, including the Republicans and Rachel Maddow have taken issue with Rep. Grayson for having used the word 'holocaust' to describe the plight of those who have died in this country due to lack of access to health care. I myself initially used the word 'regrettable' to describe his choice of words, but the more I think about it, the less I agree with that point of view. After seeing both the video footage of him in The House, and after seeing him on television interviews afterward, I believe that he was describing a holocaust, not The Holocaust.

Yes, in some ways using that word was regrettable, because it allowed the Republican opposition to briefly attempt to occupy the moral high-ground in their criticisms of him and its usage. Sadly, however, the health-care debate really has no moral high-ground because Democrats and Republicans have allowed this issue to fester, unresolved for decades.

The word 'holocaust' has been around for a long time, and my brief research shows that over the centuries it has had many meanings, including but not limited to the Nazi slaughter of twelve million people in the 1940's. So why is it no longer OK to use it?

After reading the definitions from various online and print dictionaries, it's clear to me that large losses of life, either intentional or otherwise can be, and have been referred to as 'holocausts' in the past. It's clear that lots of people die every year in the United States (and around the world) from having no access to health care, and it's also clear that it's preventable. So why then should Rep. Grayson's usage be criticized? It seems to me that when large groups of people die needlessly, it is a holocaust.

For this criticism of Rep. Grayson to be valid I think there would have to be proof that his use of the word was either meant to be reckless, or irresponsible. From the evidence that I have seen, I don't think either is true. Yes, he was excited and spoke very passionately on the House Floor. Yes, he was very probably angry over the Republicans doing everything they can to block the passage of a Public Option, but I do not fault him for his anger. I would be (and am) angry also. Do I think he went to far? Yesterday, I probably did, but today I no longer do.

Let us contrast that with the people who were carrying around photos and signs of Obama saying that he was a Nazi. From what I have seen, there is no evidence to support any of those allegations, so those posters and signs were used recklessly and irresponsibly, and what Rep. Grayson did does not compare on any level.

You are of course free to draw your own conclusions, but I for one was very excited to see someone speaking plainly, and passionately on the floor of The House. We've been subject to Orwellian Double-Speak from most of these politicos for decades, and yesterday, Rep. Grayson challenged that paradigm.

Yes, I hate those 'week-in-review' type posts, but I feel like I have to write something both just to write something, and perhaps to shake out the cobwebs.

I've been to three pottery classes now and I've started to learn those techniques that I mentioned in a previous post about pottery, that will allow me to start making more complex shapes like Vases and Amphorae. My first experiment in making a closed shape was very successful, but I chose not to keep it. Next week I hope to make several.

The health-care debate rages on, but now we're at the point where legislators are beginning to introduce Bills. The Senate Finance Committee has rejected the only two Bills proposed that included a Public Option, but fear not, the fight isn't over. There are still ways in which a Public Option can happen, but we need to get on the phones and remind the 'honorable people' that inhabit our Congressional Halls, that two thirds of the people in this United States Of America, support the Public Option.

I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, since I'm not much of a TV junkie, but in the last two weeks I've really become a huge fan of the Rachel Maddow Show. She's smart, and witty, and she calls out all of the hypocrites who tell lies, or attempt to obfuscate the truth. That's so rare in the media today, that I find it refreshing, and addictive.

Today, Alan Grayson (D, Fla) made me smile with his outburst on the House Floor when he called out all Republicans (and their Blue-Dog Democrat friends) on their opposition to any form of health care reform. I regret his use of the word 'holocaust' in his sarcastic 'apology' that he later made on the floor after the Republicans had called for one, but I agree with everything else that he said. Why aren't more Democrats speaking out like this? Unfortunately his regrettable choice of words has allowed his critics to completely ignore the truth in most of what he said, but instead, to deflect and talk about everything but.

I have mixed feeling about the Fall Season. I love it because it cools off, and the foliage is amazing, but I hate the fact that Winter is coming. Hopefully this winter will be tolerable for me, and some cool things (no pun) will happen. Here's to already hoping for an early Spring.

My best to you all.

When I was a younger man, in the mid eighties, I remember having talks with a friend of mine who was very into world politics and history. In fact he was the biggest influence in my becoming interested in politics. Not only did he spark in me an interest in the topic in general, I also saw the logic in what he was saying, and in many ways, he was the role-model for my own political beliefs. Naturally, in time, our beliefs became slightly divergent, but our core values remain the same to this day, and I expect will remain the same until our last days on earth. If you've read any of this Blog, then you have some small idea of where I'm coming from, and if you continue to read it, in time, you will be served a generous helping of my values.

My friend happened to be very interested in Russian/Soviet history, so our talks would often revolve around that very topic, and as you recall, at that time, the Berlin Wall hadn't fallen, and the Soviet Union was still in existence. I remember conversations about how perhaps in time, when all of the 'Old-Guard Cold-Warriors' had passed, that perhaps it would allow for positive change for the betterment of the Soviet Union, and her people.

I had similar hopes for my own country as well. In time I thought that our own 'Old-Guard Cold-Warriors' would pass, and we would get some responsible, progressive leaders both in government, as well as in the military, and that maybe one day we would be able to forge a strong and meaningful relationship with the Soviet Union/Russia. One of the obvious benefits of such a relationship would be a world without the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

I mention the 'Cold-Warriors' because to my way of thinking, these people embody a way of thinking that we would simply be better off, without. Extreme paranoia and distrust, combined with a completely blind sense of patriotism and nationalism. Seriously, are these the people whose finger we want on the button of most of the world's nuclear arsenal?

I also remember being in Social Studies class when I was a Junior in high school, and the teacher was explaining to the class that things like Socialism and Communism were kinds of economic systems, and not political systems. Most of the students were shocked. They had always believed that if you lived in a 'Communist' country that you had no freedoms because governance was by dictatorship. They incorrectly thought that Communism equaled Dictatorship. This is just another of the many untruths that the American people have been led to believe, by people either too blinded by patriotism, or who benefit too greatly from capitalism, to consider an economic alternative.

Well, twenty five years have passed since the mid eighties and many of those Neanderthal Cold-Warrior types have left us, yet we STILL have a right-wing dominated by this Cold-War mentality. How is this possible? How can people possibly be throwing the name 'Communist' around in the year 2009? Just as in my Social Studies class of 1983, I would be willing to bet that most of the people who use the word as a pejorative today, don't even really know what it means. They use it simply because their favorite television and radio personalities do, in their on-air buffoonery.

How is it possible that more than fifty years after the end of McCarthyism, that we still have people in political power, and on the air-waves, that would bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities Hearings, if they could? Are these people that deluded, or was former President Jimmy Carter correct with his recent comments, and is the word 'Communist' perhaps only a substitute for the word they would rather use to address the man who is our president? Either way, I find it profoundly disturbing, and long for a world where these ways of thinking are long things of the past.

I know that our two-party system, with corporations that legally bribe politicians into passing favorable legislation which coincidentally never seems to favor the every day folk, that we do not have anything even remotely resembling Democracy in this country.  It's at this point that some people attempt to remind me that we live in a Republic, and not a Democracy, but to them I say, "WHATEVER!"

In the good old days, not long ago, our politicians would at least provide the pretense of Democracy.  When all was said and done, they would go behind closed doors, smoke cigars, and do whatever was best for the elites, but prior to that they would give us one hell of a show!  They would hold rallies, shake hands, answer our letters, and sometimes even grace us with their touch, or an actual word.

Fast forward to the present day health-care debate.   I know, I know, it's painful, but it's also good for you to have to see this.  The Republicans are holding meetings, that are closed to the general public.  No, that was not an incredibly long typo... THEY ARE CLOSED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  You and I are not allowed.  The kind of people being allowed in, are people in the health care business.  You know, the kind of people who profit obscenely from perpetuating the current system.

When the Democrats had their town hall meetings, we had to put up with phony protesters being abusive and disruptive, but at least people like you and I were allowed in.  Maybe the Democrats weren't actually going to listen to the people, but at least they put on a show.  The Republicans are once again showing their true colors, and putting them proudly on display.  Only the elites matter.

Oh how I long for the days of being lied to.   :-)

As one might expect, the Health-Care debate rages on, and since my last post about it, I have been involved in many more online debates.  In that time, I still have yet to hear a single convincing argument against some sort of public option.  I have heard lots of sloganeering and flag waving, but nothing substantive.  I also hear lots of Libertarians using words that I'm not entirely convinced of which they know the meaning.  Words like "Liberty."  I hear that word a lot; it was used by the founders of this nation, and I am still not entirely sure what it means.  As best I can tell, liberty means freedom.  And if so, why not just use the word freedom?  Perhaps liberty is just a word that has gone out of vogue.  Many words get old, become stale, and exit the lexicon of usage, but perhaps much like horn-rimmed glasses, they are using them again to be seen as edgy.

In any case, Libertarians think that a Public Option will reduce the amount of liberty that they have, but none can tell me why.  Libertarians are very passionate about lost liberties, but I rarely see them talk about gained liberties.

For example, they will argue passionately when they feel something is being taken away from them, but with regards to this health-care debate, they don't feel that they are gaining any liberty.  Well I disagree.

If I can go into an emergency room and have an emergency procedure performed, without having to pay an obscenely high medical bill, then that is clearly a freedom gained.  Why is it that Libertarians can not see something so obvious?

Regardless of our system, someone is going to be paying the hospital bills.  Either you yourself, a private insurer, or the government.  So beyond that, it seems clear that the rest is all largely a paperwork issue, and I don't trust the government any less than a corporation to maintain that billing database.  Neither has demonstrated the ability to secure their computers any more than the other.

In one debate, a man was angrily arguing that he didn't want the government intruding into the most private part of his life.  I responded by telling him that he needn't worry, because it won't be his Congressperson performing the rectal, it will be a licensed physician.

What's with all of the paranoia?  Why do people think that the world will come to an end if the government offers us a public health care option?  Why, when we consider ourselves an enlightened western nation, do we oppose such a system when our European cousins have all adopted, and prospered, under something similar?  Could someone please explain that to me in words that make sense?  Further, why is it OK for the private sector to amass huge databases of data about us, but not the government?  Corporations have shown no evidence of being more benign than governments.  Also, what makes these people think that the private sector isn't already sharing this data with the government, particularly after 9/11?

During one debate that I had with a Libertarian, my opponent finally yielded and said, "You are correct, enacting a public option in and of itself does not impinge on one's freedom. It is everything else that comes along with it."  But he wouldn't explain what his vague terminology "every thing that comes along with it," actually means.

Look, I hate government intrusion into our private lives as much as any Libertarian, but I have some bad news for these people.  That cat is already out of the bag.  That Pandora's box was opened decades ago, and likely isn't going away.  Does that mean that we shouldn't fight for our freedoms?  Of course we should.  Vigilantly.  But health care in the form of a public option isn't the enemy here.  We should not oppose a public option, just because the government can listen to our phone calls.

When people express fears, but can not adequately explain them, they are really talking about the BOGEYMAN.  Yes, that elusive, imaginary monster from our childhood that lurks in closets, and hides under beds.  But aren't we supposed to be rid of him by the time we're eighteen??

I've been watching the debate on health care reform of late with subdued interest.  It's not that I don't care, because I care immensely.  It's just that I feel so powerless.  I am currently unemployed, and having some sort of "Public Option" would benefit me greatly, because if I get injured and need some sort of real procedure done, it will certainly bankrupt me or put me in debt for the rest of my life.  You're probably wondering, then, why my interest isn't more than "subdued."  Well as of last night, I got fired up.

Last night I was watching Larry King Live, and his guests were Ron Paul, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and Dr. Paul Song, and it was the first time that I've seen where these ridiculous claims being made by the conservatives, were being properly addressed, and crushed, as they should be.  Ron Paul was making the classic Libertarian/Conservative argument that any health care reform measure should include "more freedom."  What the hell does that mean?  Right now half of the people in the US have no health care coverage of any kind, and they currently have the freedom to get sick and die.  Is that the kind of freedom that Ron Paul advocates?  In watching that program, I learned that Ron Paul is a physician, and I am shocked that anyone who took the Hippocratic Oath could be against well-intentioned health-care reform like a Public Option, or single-payer system.  I've said this before in various debates, and on my (former) podcast, but I believe that health care carried out for profit, is against the Hippocratic Oath.  That is not to say that Doctors don't have the right to make a living, indeed they do, but so does everyone else in the country.  No one should be faulted for wanting to make a good living, but for me, much of the obscenity of the system lies within the insurance industry, and the politician lap dogs to which they pay legal bribes (campaign contributions) to do their bidding.

The reason I got fired up last night was because for every canned argument/talking point that Ron Paul regurgitated, Paul Song, and Sanjay Gupta had FACTS that showed that the arguments currently being used against the Public Option are hyperbolic fiction. Song and Gupta systematically dismantled Ron Paul's "arguments" and reduced them to the pile of smoldering nonsense that they were.  I love a good debate with well reasoned arguments, and for the first time that I've seen (I don't watch a lot of TV) we had a debate where the subject was actually discussed thoroughly, without a lot of theatre, and addressed properly so that the people at home could actually make a reasoned decision based on what they had witnessed.

The transcript to that Larry King Live Debate can be found here.  Scroll down about half way.

Another recent Town Hall Meeting had an angry woman asking Senator Arlin Spector, why we were moving to a Socialist system, which she argued, was a slippery slope, and the next thing you know we would be like Soviet Russia.  Whether or not Soviet Russia was truly Socialist or Marxist, is a debate for another time, but I have a question for this woman.  Does she really believe that just because Canada and most European countries have some sort of single-payer health care system, that they actually resemble Soviet Russia?  Are the people who are making these arguments truly that deluded?  Do they think that if we adopt some sort of single-payer system, that Stalin will suddenly rise from the dead and banish us all to the Gulag??  Sadly the clip that I saw of this particular town hall meeting ended before I got to see Senator Spector's reply.  I would be interested to know what he said.

A friend just posted this link of Barney Frank addressing a woman at a Town Hall Meeting who was calling the Public Option a Nazi health care plan, and carrying a photo of President Obama defaced to make him look like Hitler.  Mr. Frank gave this woman and her claims the EXACT kind of response and consideration that they required, and I hope that all people who speak up with such nonsense at these meetings are treated exactly the same way.

What confuses me the most about these fake-grass-roots-protesters-paid-off-by-the-insurance-industry-to-disrupt-meetings-and-spread-rumours, is that their arguments are not even on point and consistent.  One day they're saying Obama's plan is Socialist, and one day they're saying Obama's plan is Fascist.  For those who don't know, those two things are on polar opposite ends of the economic spectrum so they both certainly can not be true.  I understand that these people are there just to create chaos and use propaganda to evoke emotional memories of Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's Russia, to keep the status quo and to keep insurance industry profits high, but they should be ashamed of themselves.  Ultimately they are arguing against their own better interests because with the state of the current economy and where it's potentially heading, they might need a Public Option themselves.

All of these Astro-Turfing protesters remind me of a time many years ago, when a friend of mine and I were driving past the local Planned Parenthood clinic, and my friend looked at all of the abortion protesters and yelled, "GET A LIFE!"  To this day I am still not sure if his words were seen as positive or negative by the protesters that day, but to the crazed protesters whose job is to do nothing more than to disrupt and interrupt the current health care debate, I say, "GET A LIFE!" because you don't know what tomorrow will bring, and it just might be you who needs access to urgent health care.