So many of the TV talk shows this week have concentrated not on the year 2009 but this decade which will be dragged to an end this coming year. Several of the guests on Morning Joe today were speculating on whether we are in the worst decade in American history primarily because of 9/11, but also the economic crises and the seemingly endless Middle East wars on terrorism, extremist Islam, or however else the 'enemy' can be described. I'm not sure the decade of the 1860s can be written as being the worst, what with the Civil war and the deaths of over 650,000 Americans, the present decade is arguably a close second at least.
In my most cynical mood, I can see 9/11 as hideous as it was with the slaughter of 3000 innocent citizens the thing that made the George W. Bush presidency, labeling him a wartime president who therefore deserved a second term. All presidencies are somewhat accidental, defined by events over which the office holder often has no control.
Imagine how President Obama and his team must feel this very day as more information unfolds about the young Nigerian who attempted to blow up the American flight on Christmas day. Now as it appears that he was part of a well defined plot with backing and training by Al Queda. Mr. Obama, his administraton and the Democratic Party would have self destructed had that young radical been able to explode his device when the president had described the event as a lone happenstance with no connection to any Islamic group.
If that chemical mixture had worked there would have been no time for the president to play catch up. As the experts have said now for two days, the dots were clearly there but our apparently ill prepared intelligence apparatus took too long in connecting them. It was only yesterday that the president went before the microphones to say that our intelligence system had failed.
Think what a position the American leader would face had young Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab been able to correctly manipulate the stuff he'd hidden in his diaper.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Pearl Harbor Memories
It's a cold and gloomy day in Fredericksburg and the weather reminds me of December 7, 1941 in the Chicago area, but I'll come back to that in a minute or so. Today a large crowd was seated on Austin Street in front of the newly remodeled George H. W. Bush Gallery, a part of the Nimitz Museum of the Pacific War, to witness the rededication ceremony of that greatly expanded facility. Ex-President and Mrs. Bush, Gov. Perry and many other dignitaries were on hand to hear the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps speak and to listen to music provided by the Marine Corps Band. The present director of the Nimitz museum, General Hagee, is the most recently retired Commandant of the Marine Corps. Even with the cold the audience was most enthusiastic and when President Bush asked if there were any Pearl Harbor survivors present it was impressive to see much more than a handful of elderly veterans stand to be recognized. I was twelve and have vivid memories of Pearl Harbor Sunday, as well as the rest of World War II. I can remember our teacher at school the next day bringing a radio to class so that we could hear President Roosevelt address the joint session of Congress and ask that, because of a day that would live in infamy, there be a declaration of war.
But it's the weather now and then that refreshes my memory. That weekend for me meant a boy scout campout and was actually about 13 or 15 degrees colder than here and now. Our troop had left on Friday evening and spent through late Sunday afternoon in an open shelter in a Forest Preserve area south of the city. As I recall, most of our activity was trying to stay warm in the unheated shelters where we camped and making sure the food we cooked could be kept hot enough. Scouts were not allowed to bring radios to campouts, so as I walked into the living room to greet my parents on that Sunday evening I had no idea what had happened in our world that. I can remember my father saying, 'Sit down, there's some really big news you need to know."
But it's the weather now and then that refreshes my memory. That weekend for me meant a boy scout campout and was actually about 13 or 15 degrees colder than here and now. Our troop had left on Friday evening and spent through late Sunday afternoon in an open shelter in a Forest Preserve area south of the city. As I recall, most of our activity was trying to stay warm in the unheated shelters where we camped and making sure the food we cooked could be kept hot enough. Scouts were not allowed to bring radios to campouts, so as I walked into the living room to greet my parents on that Sunday evening I had no idea what had happened in our world that. I can remember my father saying, 'Sit down, there's some really big news you need to know."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
We Can't Take Our Eye Off Of this War
Elizabeth Warren, Harvard professor and currently Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, writes today in the Huffington Post about another war facing not just President Obama, but all of us, what Warren calls America without a Middle Class.
She asks if we can imagine an America without a strong middle class, and if so, would it still be America as we know it?
Dr. Warren then details the sobering facts...one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families cannot make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure, and one in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy each month. She goes on to discuss the $5 tillion lost from pension funds and savings. Ten million families may be forced to live on the streets.
This crisis didn't suddenly appear, it has been growing for at least a generation. Middle class jobs have been moving overseas for many years and the plain fact is that most of these jobs are not coming back as America has declined as a manufacturing economy and has become a technological and service society.
China is rising. A billion people overseas are joining a new middle class. Our solution is to work with this new middle class, not deny or resist it. It is here and growing. We have always excelled in innovation and development, and new ways of thinking and producing are the demands facing our future. We have simply got to continue to be the best in technology and science.
This has tremendous implications for education in preparing our young people for the future.
She asks if we can imagine an America without a strong middle class, and if so, would it still be America as we know it?
Dr. Warren then details the sobering facts...one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families cannot make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure, and one in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy each month. She goes on to discuss the $5 tillion lost from pension funds and savings. Ten million families may be forced to live on the streets.
This crisis didn't suddenly appear, it has been growing for at least a generation. Middle class jobs have been moving overseas for many years and the plain fact is that most of these jobs are not coming back as America has declined as a manufacturing economy and has become a technological and service society.
China is rising. A billion people overseas are joining a new middle class. Our solution is to work with this new middle class, not deny or resist it. It is here and growing. We have always excelled in innovation and development, and new ways of thinking and producing are the demands facing our future. We have simply got to continue to be the best in technology and science.
This has tremendous implications for education in preparing our young people for the future.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What the Speech Didn't Do
I largely agree with Tom Friedman's article in the today's New York Times when he says that he cannot agree with President Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
I don't think that the President answered the questions of what success in Afghanistan will look like, when and if this war ever ends, as well as how we will pay for it as we face an insurmountable national debt which will be made even worse at the cost of one million dollars for each additonal soldier each year we keep in action in the Middle East. Mr. Obama targets the summer of 2011 as a possible time American troops could withdraw from Afghanistan. This has to be made with the full knowledge that military plans can never be guaranteed that far in advance.
I say this with nothing but respect and appreciation for Mr. Obama as he sits in the oval office and alone holds the weight of the awesome problems facing this country as well as the responsibility of America as a world leader. We can only imagine the pressure of the responsibility he feels. He says he is convinced that the safety of the United States is threatened by Taliban presence in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says this based on months of investigation and discussion with his military and civilian advisers. I believe in his honesty and sincerity. I question that he can do what he proposes.
For many of us the actions of Bush/Cheney and associates were disgraceful based on lies and distortions and only further tarnished by the revelations about the poor treatment given our wounded veterans from Iraq, and the insult of the policy to not show pictures of coffins being returned to Dover, Delaware. It was good that Mr. Obama reported his visits to the wounded at Walter Reed Hospital and his show of respect at the Dover ceremonies.
The President said something about 43, I think that was the number, other countries who are supporting our action in Afghanistan. The reports are however that the US bears at least 70% of the cost of this war. If this situation is as grave as a threat to world peace as the President believes, and if he has restored greatly our respect around the world, then why not call on more of the world and the United Nations to confront what is claimed to be such a danger to international stability?
I don't think that the President answered the questions of what success in Afghanistan will look like, when and if this war ever ends, as well as how we will pay for it as we face an insurmountable national debt which will be made even worse at the cost of one million dollars for each additonal soldier each year we keep in action in the Middle East. Mr. Obama targets the summer of 2011 as a possible time American troops could withdraw from Afghanistan. This has to be made with the full knowledge that military plans can never be guaranteed that far in advance.
I say this with nothing but respect and appreciation for Mr. Obama as he sits in the oval office and alone holds the weight of the awesome problems facing this country as well as the responsibility of America as a world leader. We can only imagine the pressure of the responsibility he feels. He says he is convinced that the safety of the United States is threatened by Taliban presence in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says this based on months of investigation and discussion with his military and civilian advisers. I believe in his honesty and sincerity. I question that he can do what he proposes.
For many of us the actions of Bush/Cheney and associates were disgraceful based on lies and distortions and only further tarnished by the revelations about the poor treatment given our wounded veterans from Iraq, and the insult of the policy to not show pictures of coffins being returned to Dover, Delaware. It was good that Mr. Obama reported his visits to the wounded at Walter Reed Hospital and his show of respect at the Dover ceremonies.
The President said something about 43, I think that was the number, other countries who are supporting our action in Afghanistan. The reports are however that the US bears at least 70% of the cost of this war. If this situation is as grave as a threat to world peace as the President believes, and if he has restored greatly our respect around the world, then why not call on more of the world and the United Nations to confront what is claimed to be such a danger to international stability?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A Blend of Hope and Skepticism
I'm going to listen to our President tonight with as open a mind as I will be able to muster , but I must admit there is a dose of skepticism lurking within me nurtured by the fear that he has been sold a bill of political goods by those who advise him.
Bob Herbert in the New York Times today talked of his skepticism about the Obama plan to send tens of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan. I share Herbert's skepticism. This war has gone on for nine years and has been a failure. Barack Obama ran as a candidate who had opposed the Bush/Cheney preemptive war in Iraq based on deliberate lies and distortions and who at that time agreed with those critics who said that terrorism would flourish because of precipitous military action on the part of the United States. True Bush was faced with his feeling that he had to make some response to the horror of 9/11 and not appear helpless and unwilling to act. Cheney and Rumsfeld saw the chance to influence the then President to take bold action, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
President Obama will supposedly tell the nation of his reasoning and will explain his specific goals, his 'end game,' and how he will get us out of this complex mess that affects a number of Middle East nations. I hope while he's at it he can explain his definition of what success over there is. What is it we are attempting to do, really, and how will we know when it has been done? When the last American troops are brought home in a few years what will be left to be seen in that region of the world, and how will what is left be different from what we see there now?
Many honest and thoughtful people were drawn to accept the idea of going into Iraq because of the Bush/Cheney insistance that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction but supported the terrorists. People whom I respect like Tom Friedman and Hillary Clinton and scores of others bought into what the White House pushed, while Saudi Arabia was as much more a danger to us than Iraq, just as Pakistan today is a greater threat to the world than Afghanistan.
I voted for President Obama and would like very much to support him for a second term of office. I can understand the fear anyone in his position would feel about being charged as weak and ineffectual when the country faces great danger. The generals must have made a strong case to cause Obama to plan to send the reported thirty plus thousands of troops into this war. We face other pressing problems too, and he must continue to press for the centerpiece of his program, healthcare, and now the crisis of unemployment. I'm afraid that the mistake of this projected Afghanistan action may further dilute his ability to deal with these urgent needs.
God help the President, God help the nation, and God help us all.
Bob Herbert in the New York Times today talked of his skepticism about the Obama plan to send tens of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan. I share Herbert's skepticism. This war has gone on for nine years and has been a failure. Barack Obama ran as a candidate who had opposed the Bush/Cheney preemptive war in Iraq based on deliberate lies and distortions and who at that time agreed with those critics who said that terrorism would flourish because of precipitous military action on the part of the United States. True Bush was faced with his feeling that he had to make some response to the horror of 9/11 and not appear helpless and unwilling to act. Cheney and Rumsfeld saw the chance to influence the then President to take bold action, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
President Obama will supposedly tell the nation of his reasoning and will explain his specific goals, his 'end game,' and how he will get us out of this complex mess that affects a number of Middle East nations. I hope while he's at it he can explain his definition of what success over there is. What is it we are attempting to do, really, and how will we know when it has been done? When the last American troops are brought home in a few years what will be left to be seen in that region of the world, and how will what is left be different from what we see there now?
Many honest and thoughtful people were drawn to accept the idea of going into Iraq because of the Bush/Cheney insistance that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction but supported the terrorists. People whom I respect like Tom Friedman and Hillary Clinton and scores of others bought into what the White House pushed, while Saudi Arabia was as much more a danger to us than Iraq, just as Pakistan today is a greater threat to the world than Afghanistan.
I voted for President Obama and would like very much to support him for a second term of office. I can understand the fear anyone in his position would feel about being charged as weak and ineffectual when the country faces great danger. The generals must have made a strong case to cause Obama to plan to send the reported thirty plus thousands of troops into this war. We face other pressing problems too, and he must continue to press for the centerpiece of his program, healthcare, and now the crisis of unemployment. I'm afraid that the mistake of this projected Afghanistan action may further dilute his ability to deal with these urgent needs.
God help the President, God help the nation, and God help us all.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
White House Compassion Needed
Today's New York Times has a sad news article about the family of an American soldier who died by suicide in Iraq in June of this year. He is one of 133 Army suicides which have taken place through October of this year and may well surpass last year's total of 140. So far this year there have been 42 Marine deaths also by suicide. The article points out that most-self inflicted deaths take place on military posts in the US, but since 2001 there have been 184 suicides by the American military in Iraq.
Suicide is always a tragedy which causes deep pain, confusion, inner conflict and guilt for the survivors. The addded tragedy reported in this article is the fact that though this family received death benefits due at the death of their son, and a folded flag as well as his eligibilty to be buried in a military cemetary, they did not receive a letter from President Obama expressing his sympathy on the loss of their soldier son. When they called the White House to inquire about a letter from the President they were told by a protocol officer that at least since the time of the Clinton Administration presidents have not witten to the families when the death was a suicide. The implication of this policy may very well be based on the notion that suicide is not an honorable way for a soldier to die and therefore the President doesn't offer the his or the nation's sympathy for this kind of death.
My belief is that this is at the very least a callous and unfeeling slap at a family who are grieving the loss of another victim of tragic death. Certainly suicide is the result of intense mental suffering and turmoil, and for whatever internal psychological conflicts cause it, families are left to deal with the loss of a loved one. Why wouldn't a President as Commander in Chief offer his condolences as he does for all other active duty military deaths, whether by military action, accident, 'friendly fire,' or sickness? Why should judgment be inflicted on the families of suicides? Certainly no other judgments are made about the cause of service member deaths - has no soldier ever died because of careless or reckless behavior, intoxication, or other unknown circumstance? Those questions are never raised apparently.
We make much of the fact that we have a volunteer military. These people have chosen to go into the service and have been willing to be sent into combat, to place themselves in harm's way if ordered.
We have no way to know why this young soldier killed himself and his parents are left to deal with their own grief. Though they received all of the other benefits accorded families, the flag, taps at his buriel and apparently the usual financial assistance given families, but they wondered why not the comfort of a presidential letter of condolence.
I think presidents have a duty to represent the people of this country in continuing the tradition of writing to all families who lose a loved one in the service, whether or not a given person is a victim of the hoplessness and depression which has led them to kill themselves. Why further punish their survivors?
Suicide is always a tragedy which causes deep pain, confusion, inner conflict and guilt for the survivors. The addded tragedy reported in this article is the fact that though this family received death benefits due at the death of their son, and a folded flag as well as his eligibilty to be buried in a military cemetary, they did not receive a letter from President Obama expressing his sympathy on the loss of their soldier son. When they called the White House to inquire about a letter from the President they were told by a protocol officer that at least since the time of the Clinton Administration presidents have not witten to the families when the death was a suicide. The implication of this policy may very well be based on the notion that suicide is not an honorable way for a soldier to die and therefore the President doesn't offer the his or the nation's sympathy for this kind of death.
My belief is that this is at the very least a callous and unfeeling slap at a family who are grieving the loss of another victim of tragic death. Certainly suicide is the result of intense mental suffering and turmoil, and for whatever internal psychological conflicts cause it, families are left to deal with the loss of a loved one. Why wouldn't a President as Commander in Chief offer his condolences as he does for all other active duty military deaths, whether by military action, accident, 'friendly fire,' or sickness? Why should judgment be inflicted on the families of suicides? Certainly no other judgments are made about the cause of service member deaths - has no soldier ever died because of careless or reckless behavior, intoxication, or other unknown circumstance? Those questions are never raised apparently.
We make much of the fact that we have a volunteer military. These people have chosen to go into the service and have been willing to be sent into combat, to place themselves in harm's way if ordered.
We have no way to know why this young soldier killed himself and his parents are left to deal with their own grief. Though they received all of the other benefits accorded families, the flag, taps at his buriel and apparently the usual financial assistance given families, but they wondered why not the comfort of a presidential letter of condolence.
I think presidents have a duty to represent the people of this country in continuing the tradition of writing to all families who lose a loved one in the service, whether or not a given person is a victim of the hoplessness and depression which has led them to kill themselves. Why further punish their survivors?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
OCTOBER DAZE
As I encounter my usual news and opinion sources, papers, televison programs, comments from friends and associates it seems clear that the dominant theme for this fall is impatience, especially impatience with the gestation of this nine month old presidency of Mr. Obama. There was an almost universal air of excitement when he and his family watched the inaugaration parade and we saw them enter their new home together.
Certainly by now the President should have solved the issue of a failing world economy, how many world crises? - Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, North Korea- the campaign promise of a much-needed reform of the health care system with the attendant issue of a public option in health insurance, plus, how many other things? Oh yes, America's standing in world opinion, though the latest reports indicate we are back to number one.
It's only the Rightists on our shores who publically admit they keep hoping our President will fail in every way.
We often hear the old political science class wisdom that some people make good candidates and run well, and others can govern well when they are installed in office, but many can only do one or the other. Was Barack Obama simply an attractive and inspiring candidate, but now a weak leader? One recurring criticism about the stalled health care plan is that he simply threw this to the warring Congress and is sitting back waiting for them to solve the conlicted positions on things like single payer and the public option. That's depending on a solution from an Institution that is rated far lower than his ratings with the public.
Some of this may be style and personality, Obama is professorish even to the slight stammer and hesitancy in answering a question or introducing a subject. We wish that he would bang his fist once in a way and grab lapels like Lyndon Johnson.
But we know the issues and they are huge and complicated and have been around for eight or ten years. In Afganistan alone, the counter-insurgency plan of General McChrystal is generally agreed may take ten years of our involvement to see settled. The news today is that very likely Obama won't be able to close the prison at Guantanamo by the January promised deadline he made during the campaign.
With the exception of the swine flu epidemic, all of these other issues were waitng on his desk when he first reported for work. No one else or group have come up with clear alternative solutions.
I think it's better to pull for the President at this point than to wish him ill, that is wishing it for the whole country.
Still, Mr. President, couldn't you flash a little more fire? We're all waiting.
Certainly by now the President should have solved the issue of a failing world economy, how many world crises? - Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, North Korea- the campaign promise of a much-needed reform of the health care system with the attendant issue of a public option in health insurance, plus, how many other things? Oh yes, America's standing in world opinion, though the latest reports indicate we are back to number one.
It's only the Rightists on our shores who publically admit they keep hoping our President will fail in every way.
We often hear the old political science class wisdom that some people make good candidates and run well, and others can govern well when they are installed in office, but many can only do one or the other. Was Barack Obama simply an attractive and inspiring candidate, but now a weak leader? One recurring criticism about the stalled health care plan is that he simply threw this to the warring Congress and is sitting back waiting for them to solve the conlicted positions on things like single payer and the public option. That's depending on a solution from an Institution that is rated far lower than his ratings with the public.
Some of this may be style and personality, Obama is professorish even to the slight stammer and hesitancy in answering a question or introducing a subject. We wish that he would bang his fist once in a way and grab lapels like Lyndon Johnson.
But we know the issues and they are huge and complicated and have been around for eight or ten years. In Afganistan alone, the counter-insurgency plan of General McChrystal is generally agreed may take ten years of our involvement to see settled. The news today is that very likely Obama won't be able to close the prison at Guantanamo by the January promised deadline he made during the campaign.
With the exception of the swine flu epidemic, all of these other issues were waitng on his desk when he first reported for work. No one else or group have come up with clear alternative solutions.
I think it's better to pull for the President at this point than to wish him ill, that is wishing it for the whole country.
Still, Mr. President, couldn't you flash a little more fire? We're all waiting.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Another Pit Bull in the alley at midnight
Forget the questions about whether our President has been on television too much for his own good this past week, I looked at the media debate about that as a bunch of commentators with not enough substance to talk about. Let's ramble a bit about what's on his plate now. Being president these days is like taking a stroll through a dark alley full of pit bulls at midnight.
The President gave his first address to the United Nations and took his turn presiding at the Security Council.
The health care debate seems to go on forever, especially the question of the public option. The insurance industry really fears a government sponsored alternative plan choice as a way to give actual competition to health care for everyone. This kind of option would actually mean giving people a choice at any age to sign up for a kind of medicare.
The latest alternative from the Senate Republicans would be funny if it wasn't so stupid: a so-called alternative option which would involve requiring everyone to have health insurance which would only be offered by insurance companies, no government option. The insurance companies of course are all in favor of this as it would mean billions more income for them and all they would have to do is offer cheap, vitually worthless plans which those who can't afford would have to buy.
This was almost as humorous as Sarah Palin flying to Hong Kong to earn a big speaking fee for lecturing financiers on the intricacies of world finance. I wonder if she could see Red China from her hotel window?
The news this morning however pushes the seemingly endless health care debate to page 2: the news from Iran of their having a second plant to enrich uranium. This forced the French and British leaders to join Mr. Obama in condemning this action and warning Iran that the consequences will be severe unless they allow immediate inspection of this program and that it be stopped. The thought of Iran entering the nuclear weapons business is too terrible to imagine.
A side benefit of this action on Iran's part could be Russia joining the NATO nations in imposing sanctions on Iran and the possibility that China might follow Russia's action.
This has been quite a week for President Obama, and all of us.
Iran it turns out is the latest pit bull in the alley.
The President gave his first address to the United Nations and took his turn presiding at the Security Council.
The health care debate seems to go on forever, especially the question of the public option. The insurance industry really fears a government sponsored alternative plan choice as a way to give actual competition to health care for everyone. This kind of option would actually mean giving people a choice at any age to sign up for a kind of medicare.
The latest alternative from the Senate Republicans would be funny if it wasn't so stupid: a so-called alternative option which would involve requiring everyone to have health insurance which would only be offered by insurance companies, no government option. The insurance companies of course are all in favor of this as it would mean billions more income for them and all they would have to do is offer cheap, vitually worthless plans which those who can't afford would have to buy.
This was almost as humorous as Sarah Palin flying to Hong Kong to earn a big speaking fee for lecturing financiers on the intricacies of world finance. I wonder if she could see Red China from her hotel window?
The news this morning however pushes the seemingly endless health care debate to page 2: the news from Iran of their having a second plant to enrich uranium. This forced the French and British leaders to join Mr. Obama in condemning this action and warning Iran that the consequences will be severe unless they allow immediate inspection of this program and that it be stopped. The thought of Iran entering the nuclear weapons business is too terrible to imagine.
A side benefit of this action on Iran's part could be Russia joining the NATO nations in imposing sanctions on Iran and the possibility that China might follow Russia's action.
This has been quite a week for President Obama, and all of us.
Iran it turns out is the latest pit bull in the alley.
Friday, August 21, 2009
FLASH! health care system still broken
How often to do you look at the front pages of the papers, listen to the chatter on cable, or even think about what's important now without being reminded of the confusion in health care reform? Things seem to be at a sagging pace. Those on the Right appear delighted that Mr. Obama looks to be losing. After all, they must prepare for 2012. Solving the health care mess isn't as imporant as that.
The 'blue dogs' have been scared off by the Republican's attacks of the threat of 'death panels,' a Hitlarian or Stalinist sounding term which accomplishes it's purpose, throwing fear and confusion into the picture: the government making sure the old and infirm are disposed of efficiently and effectively. Of course the proposal of discussing end of life issues had nothing to do with death panels, it only encouraged advance directives and living wills.
The Progressives are also disgusted with the White House hint that the government option feature might be dropped, because it has certainly upset Big Insurance lobbyists who have poured so much money into the coffers of the people in Congress. A government option would of course foster more competition and bring down the cost of insurance, but that would be a disaster for that industry's profit motive. And the Progressives feel that Mr. Obama has let them down and weakened the plan.
I wish the Obama family well on their vacation and hope that the President will come back refreshed and with the strength and will to come out swinging for this vital program - apparently it's up to him entirely. The liberal press is discouraged, Evil-news nutties like Fox are delighted, supposedly the elderly are afraid they will see Medicare diluted - and all of this is waiting for the President.
I wonder if the rest of us could maybe write to our Blessed Representatives in Congress and let them know we need health care reform that is real and makes sense.
The 'blue dogs' have been scared off by the Republican's attacks of the threat of 'death panels,' a Hitlarian or Stalinist sounding term which accomplishes it's purpose, throwing fear and confusion into the picture: the government making sure the old and infirm are disposed of efficiently and effectively. Of course the proposal of discussing end of life issues had nothing to do with death panels, it only encouraged advance directives and living wills.
The Progressives are also disgusted with the White House hint that the government option feature might be dropped, because it has certainly upset Big Insurance lobbyists who have poured so much money into the coffers of the people in Congress. A government option would of course foster more competition and bring down the cost of insurance, but that would be a disaster for that industry's profit motive. And the Progressives feel that Mr. Obama has let them down and weakened the plan.
I wish the Obama family well on their vacation and hope that the President will come back refreshed and with the strength and will to come out swinging for this vital program - apparently it's up to him entirely. The liberal press is discouraged, Evil-news nutties like Fox are delighted, supposedly the elderly are afraid they will see Medicare diluted - and all of this is waiting for the President.
I wonder if the rest of us could maybe write to our Blessed Representatives in Congress and let them know we need health care reform that is real and makes sense.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Social Insecurity
In May the government said that the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than was predicted a year ago. One of the problems for Social Security is the expotential growth of executive pay, most of which exceeds the limit on income that is subject to the payroll tax, now set at $106,800.
Since 1982 the portion of the wages subject to Social Security taxes has shrunk from 90 to 83 percent, and this figure doesn't even include other executive compensation such as stock options. If the earnings ceiling were lifted, the trust fund would be solvent for the next 75years. (Source: Wall Street Journal, July 21).
All the recent talk about socialism, it would seem that the only evidence for it is in the highest income brackets.
Since 1982 the portion of the wages subject to Social Security taxes has shrunk from 90 to 83 percent, and this figure doesn't even include other executive compensation such as stock options. If the earnings ceiling were lifted, the trust fund would be solvent for the next 75years. (Source: Wall Street Journal, July 21).
All the recent talk about socialism, it would seem that the only evidence for it is in the highest income brackets.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Too Complicated to Understand?
Trying to follow the health care reform debate gets more complicated by the day. Those who favor a universal health care plan for the United States are faced with confusing proposals. Those who favor a government option as a way of assuring coverage for everyone, while preserving the choices of the many private plans now available, rightly fear that the government option will be shot down by the insurance industry. The president has said repeatedly that he will only support a plan that preserves the private choices people have now, and that the government plan would be in addition. It's evident that the Right are promoting anything that will confuse and defeat any reform.
Now we see the foolishness of the so-called 'death panels' threats which supposedly would have the power to withhold care for the ill who face end-of-life issues. This of course has never been proposed and is only a ploy being used to muddy the waters. Living wills, advance directives and end of life discussions are valuable tools for intelligent planning, but should be talked about apart from the issue of insurance coverage for all.
I have felt all along that the Obama plan should have been proposed as simply as possible, something like 'Universal Medicare,' which would be expanding the current Medicare program to include all ages of the population. Medicare now for those 65 and over has included many private options - the supplementary insurance coverage which can be purchased in addition to the government program. There are now a wide variety of private plans offered by insurance companies, some through employers and pension plans, but many which can be purchased individually according to the choice of the customer. The government could come up with a government sponsored supplement to Medicare to compete with the private supplimentary plans now offered. Such a government offered supplement could foster competition and lower the cost of the other plans.
All sides agree that a careful cleansing of waste in the current system must be effected in order for any reform to be affordable. I would favor in addition some kind of law to forbid Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds for other programs which has been done for years.
For any proposal to have a chance to succeed, it must be clear and understandable in order to be free from deliberate attempts to confuse what we all know is needed, a workable system of health care for everyone. I think the place to begin is Medicare for all ages.
Now we see the foolishness of the so-called 'death panels' threats which supposedly would have the power to withhold care for the ill who face end-of-life issues. This of course has never been proposed and is only a ploy being used to muddy the waters. Living wills, advance directives and end of life discussions are valuable tools for intelligent planning, but should be talked about apart from the issue of insurance coverage for all.
I have felt all along that the Obama plan should have been proposed as simply as possible, something like 'Universal Medicare,' which would be expanding the current Medicare program to include all ages of the population. Medicare now for those 65 and over has included many private options - the supplementary insurance coverage which can be purchased in addition to the government program. There are now a wide variety of private plans offered by insurance companies, some through employers and pension plans, but many which can be purchased individually according to the choice of the customer. The government could come up with a government sponsored supplement to Medicare to compete with the private supplimentary plans now offered. Such a government offered supplement could foster competition and lower the cost of the other plans.
All sides agree that a careful cleansing of waste in the current system must be effected in order for any reform to be affordable. I would favor in addition some kind of law to forbid Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds for other programs which has been done for years.
For any proposal to have a chance to succeed, it must be clear and understandable in order to be free from deliberate attempts to confuse what we all know is needed, a workable system of health care for everyone. I think the place to begin is Medicare for all ages.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Politics As Usual, as usual
It's obvious that the interim platform for the Republican party is to try and defeat anything that President Obama tries to accomplish so that he could be defeated in the election of 2012. Many were shocked when Rush Limbaugh announced a few months ago that he wanted Obama to fail even if it meant the country would fail, afterall, Limbaugh is shielded in a bubble of gas that allows him to be allowed such words. But it's apparent that this is a concerted tactic being used by Republicans. If Obama promotes it, Republicans must defeat it.
Now it's not just Rush but most of the Republican side of the House and Senate. McCain has announced that he won't vote for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, even though 30% of his constituents are hispanic and no one has made a credible case that she is anything but an exceptionally qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Texas senators are joining their Party colleagues in trying to defeat the plan for a new health care plan and have both stated that they're against a so-called public option which most supporters of health reform show must be included for any plan to succeed in order to accomplish affordable care for all Americans.
Every red flag has been raised, the label of socialism, the threat of increasing control by big government, even the birther charge that Obama isn't even a natural born citizen of the United States though the proof of his birth in Hawaii has been produced repeatedly by that state.
I know, the same charge of obstructionism has been made about the Democrats in the past. And in every new election we will hear the promises of no more politics as usual and a new breath of bipartisanship. The problem now is that this country is facing perhaps the most serious challenges that it has ever faced. It's time for our political leaders to be shaken up and driven for their own political survival to learn how to work together for the survival of the nation.
Now it's not just Rush but most of the Republican side of the House and Senate. McCain has announced that he won't vote for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, even though 30% of his constituents are hispanic and no one has made a credible case that she is anything but an exceptionally qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Texas senators are joining their Party colleagues in trying to defeat the plan for a new health care plan and have both stated that they're against a so-called public option which most supporters of health reform show must be included for any plan to succeed in order to accomplish affordable care for all Americans.
Every red flag has been raised, the label of socialism, the threat of increasing control by big government, even the birther charge that Obama isn't even a natural born citizen of the United States though the proof of his birth in Hawaii has been produced repeatedly by that state.
I know, the same charge of obstructionism has been made about the Democrats in the past. And in every new election we will hear the promises of no more politics as usual and a new breath of bipartisanship. The problem now is that this country is facing perhaps the most serious challenges that it has ever faced. It's time for our political leaders to be shaken up and driven for their own political survival to learn how to work together for the survival of the nation.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Prof and the Cop
This is in response to the news reports of Ms. Whalen, the citizen who phoned the police when she saw what she thought could very well have been the forced entry of a house on the street where she was driving. Her testimony sheds much light on what happened and it turns out that at no point had she raised the issue or mentioned the race of the persons she witnessed. Indeed the only mention of the race of one of the suspected participants was in response to questions by the police dispatcher.
I am saddened by the polls that indicate that a preponderance of people think that Prof. Gates was out of line in this incident and deserved arrest even though the police dropped charges. Ms. Whalen helps put the truth of this matter in better perspective by showing that race had nothing to do with her concern to report what she felt might be a breakin she saw at a house in Cambridge and I think deserves commendation for being a responsible citizen. It is clear that the police dispacther is the only one who raised the irrelevant question of the skin color of those who appeared to be forcing the door. This woman was simply doing what we are all urged to do, notify the police if we think we are witnessing or have seen a crime taking place.
Sgt. Crowley blew his cool and overreacted to what was probably Prof. Gates' obvious irritation at being confronted as a criminal in his own home. When the professor came out on the porch it would have been better for the police to ask that everyone calm down and see if the situation could be sorted out. No weapons were involved, no victims were in danger, there was no time limit on this incident. The basic fact remains and always will, Gates was arrested after he had shown conclusive evidence that he was in his own home. We are left to conclude that this event was tainted by racial bias, not on the part of Ms. Whalen, or for that matter, Gates, but by Sgt. Crowley, and it is he who should step up and redeem himself by apologising to the professor and the public for very unprofessional behavior. Our President was right, Crowley on behalf of his police department can be said to have acted stupidley.
I have been a fan of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for some time and have enjoyed his televison work on PBS. His edited book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery, is a masterful and balanced presentation, in Lincoln's own words, of our Civil War president's changing and growing understanding of the African American citizens who had been brought to this country in bondage. Lincoln was a man of his time and place and his attitude toward the blacks, slave and free, developed from a position of seeing them only as inferiors and a problem group who would be better sent back to Africa or colonized in some place like South America to arriving at the point where he could issue the two executive orders which changed forever their status in this nation.
The first Presidential order issued in 1862 announced the freedom of all slaves in any of the Confederate states that didn't return to the Union by January first, 1863, the second order of course, the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed over 20,000 enslaved persons. The Proclamation was critisized on all sides, both for turning loose slaves in the ten named states as well as not including slaves in the border states. By the end of the war millions of slaves were freed. In Lincoln's mind, much of this was because of the debt the nation owed to the nearly 200,000 slaves who had voluntarily served the Union forces and made possible the ending of that horrible war.
Whatever our views on racial equality and justice, Professor Gates was in his own home when he was arrested and handcuffed.
I am saddened by the polls that indicate that a preponderance of people think that Prof. Gates was out of line in this incident and deserved arrest even though the police dropped charges. Ms. Whalen helps put the truth of this matter in better perspective by showing that race had nothing to do with her concern to report what she felt might be a breakin she saw at a house in Cambridge and I think deserves commendation for being a responsible citizen. It is clear that the police dispacther is the only one who raised the irrelevant question of the skin color of those who appeared to be forcing the door. This woman was simply doing what we are all urged to do, notify the police if we think we are witnessing or have seen a crime taking place.
Sgt. Crowley blew his cool and overreacted to what was probably Prof. Gates' obvious irritation at being confronted as a criminal in his own home. When the professor came out on the porch it would have been better for the police to ask that everyone calm down and see if the situation could be sorted out. No weapons were involved, no victims were in danger, there was no time limit on this incident. The basic fact remains and always will, Gates was arrested after he had shown conclusive evidence that he was in his own home. We are left to conclude that this event was tainted by racial bias, not on the part of Ms. Whalen, or for that matter, Gates, but by Sgt. Crowley, and it is he who should step up and redeem himself by apologising to the professor and the public for very unprofessional behavior. Our President was right, Crowley on behalf of his police department can be said to have acted stupidley.
I have been a fan of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for some time and have enjoyed his televison work on PBS. His edited book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery, is a masterful and balanced presentation, in Lincoln's own words, of our Civil War president's changing and growing understanding of the African American citizens who had been brought to this country in bondage. Lincoln was a man of his time and place and his attitude toward the blacks, slave and free, developed from a position of seeing them only as inferiors and a problem group who would be better sent back to Africa or colonized in some place like South America to arriving at the point where he could issue the two executive orders which changed forever their status in this nation.
The first Presidential order issued in 1862 announced the freedom of all slaves in any of the Confederate states that didn't return to the Union by January first, 1863, the second order of course, the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed over 20,000 enslaved persons. The Proclamation was critisized on all sides, both for turning loose slaves in the ten named states as well as not including slaves in the border states. By the end of the war millions of slaves were freed. In Lincoln's mind, much of this was because of the debt the nation owed to the nearly 200,000 slaves who had voluntarily served the Union forces and made possible the ending of that horrible war.
Whatever our views on racial equality and justice, Professor Gates was in his own home when he was arrested and handcuffed.
Monday, July 20, 2009
A vote for the robots.
The news today is filled with the 40 year anniversary of the moon landing, a date most of us living then will never forget. I remember being glued to the set in Tulsa and hearing, "A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind." Exciting. We had beat the Soviets who had outdistanced us in the late 50s with Sputnick and had fulfilled the dream of John Kennedy that an American would walk on the moon. Humans had reached the moon and were to return safely. JSC exhibited moon rocks.
We lived in Pasadena, Texas from 1975 until 1994 and one of the interesting places nearby was the Johnson Space Center, and the church I pastored had a number of JSC employees, a few of them at fairly high levels of administration. Sid Jones used to bring me the little folders each JSC staff member had that outlined the schedule of events for the Shuttle flights and descriptions of the experiments that were conducted on them. By the 80s with the ecnomic slumps we faced, discussion of things like Mars exploration died down and that program was put on hold. Hanging on a wall here is a framed small American flag which flew on one of the Shuttle flights.
Though there's talk today about reinstituting the Mars program and beyond that Venus, no one seriously thinks the world economy or the national budget will allow it. I can remember being invited to a social gathering with a number of Space Center people. Someone, a rocket engineer from Chicago whose name I forget, brought up the subject of an article in the journal Science arguing against manned space flights and touting the use of robotics. He said that a huge percentage of the cost of space exploration went into providing safety features for getting humans to and from space targets like the moon or Mars. Billions could be saved and about the same science acheived with non manned space vehicles. The room froze and it was apparent that this poor fellow was preaching to the wrong congregation. The Johnson Space Center staff launched into vigorous reasons why space exploration had to be manned, most of their arguments more political than scientific.
After many years of reflection, and other articles read, I vote for the robots. The science of robotics has developed to the point where we can do almost as much, or as much, as we can with sending humans into space. Robotic gadgets can go to the target and come back with the samples we seek and high grade data. If a blip takes place, we've lost a replaceable machine not a person and far less money than would be required for human flight.
Let's hear it for the robots.
We lived in Pasadena, Texas from 1975 until 1994 and one of the interesting places nearby was the Johnson Space Center, and the church I pastored had a number of JSC employees, a few of them at fairly high levels of administration. Sid Jones used to bring me the little folders each JSC staff member had that outlined the schedule of events for the Shuttle flights and descriptions of the experiments that were conducted on them. By the 80s with the ecnomic slumps we faced, discussion of things like Mars exploration died down and that program was put on hold. Hanging on a wall here is a framed small American flag which flew on one of the Shuttle flights.
Though there's talk today about reinstituting the Mars program and beyond that Venus, no one seriously thinks the world economy or the national budget will allow it. I can remember being invited to a social gathering with a number of Space Center people. Someone, a rocket engineer from Chicago whose name I forget, brought up the subject of an article in the journal Science arguing against manned space flights and touting the use of robotics. He said that a huge percentage of the cost of space exploration went into providing safety features for getting humans to and from space targets like the moon or Mars. Billions could be saved and about the same science acheived with non manned space vehicles. The room froze and it was apparent that this poor fellow was preaching to the wrong congregation. The Johnson Space Center staff launched into vigorous reasons why space exploration had to be manned, most of their arguments more political than scientific.
After many years of reflection, and other articles read, I vote for the robots. The science of robotics has developed to the point where we can do almost as much, or as much, as we can with sending humans into space. Robotic gadgets can go to the target and come back with the samples we seek and high grade data. If a blip takes place, we've lost a replaceable machine not a person and far less money than would be required for human flight.
Let's hear it for the robots.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Newsflash: Those Out want those IN Out !
Of course Rush Limburger isn't the only NeoCon-Republican-type who wants to see President Obama and the Democrats fail. They all do of course. It's the nature of the game to want to defeat your opponents. The unified line we hear from the Right is growing deficits and the huge costs of paying off the idiocy of the last Administration.
I'm thinking of the healthcare crisis as an urgent need and it's bumping into the gigantic cost of the bailouts, the mortgage crisis and of course the darkening international situtations in the Middle East as well as North Korea which have strained our military to the breaking point. We need Russia's help with Iran and China with North Korea and neither seem willing to cooperate. These things are dangerous and unbelieveably costly and won't go away. In the face of them the NeoCon answer is that solving the healthcare mess of 46 million uninsured citizens and an out-of-control healthcare machine can't be solved now. The nub of the issue for the Right is that offering a government supported healthcare option, like Medicare, for everyone will destroy the private health insurance industry. Everyone has an ox, drug and insurance companies, large healthcare organizations, some medical groups - all those who make a profit from treating illness. Coupled with this are known needs which will reform and improve healhcare - prevention as a treatment component, wellness programs, a concentration in medicine on educating people to avoid the inevitable results of poor lifestyles. All of these are basic to health reform but insurance coverage for all is the base and foundation and must be part of the solution and I see no way it will happen without a government plan as an option for universal coverage.
I have long believed that basic health insurance should be mandated for everyone from their entrance into the workforce and Social Security. Anyone obtaining a license for a car must show proof of required liability insurance. Why not the same for healthcare, a mandate for the employee and the employer? This would probably be at the level of catastrophic coverage with options for additional coveraged as needed or offered to each person and would have higher deductibles.
But a Government sponsored option must be part of the structure, and the inevitable competition with the insurance industry can only strengthen and improve healthcare and lower costs in the longrun. It is the basis of free enterprise. We have 'socialism' now in the form of plans given to Congress and the rest of the government or those with incomes high enough to buy into expensive private plans.
Medicare isn't perfect by any means but remains a lifesaver for those on Social Security and if Congresses of both parties hadn't raped the SS trust funds over the years would be in far better financial shape today. The Democrats have control the Government now. It's high time they act on all the things they have campaigned for.
I'm thinking of the healthcare crisis as an urgent need and it's bumping into the gigantic cost of the bailouts, the mortgage crisis and of course the darkening international situtations in the Middle East as well as North Korea which have strained our military to the breaking point. We need Russia's help with Iran and China with North Korea and neither seem willing to cooperate. These things are dangerous and unbelieveably costly and won't go away. In the face of them the NeoCon answer is that solving the healthcare mess of 46 million uninsured citizens and an out-of-control healthcare machine can't be solved now. The nub of the issue for the Right is that offering a government supported healthcare option, like Medicare, for everyone will destroy the private health insurance industry. Everyone has an ox, drug and insurance companies, large healthcare organizations, some medical groups - all those who make a profit from treating illness. Coupled with this are known needs which will reform and improve healhcare - prevention as a treatment component, wellness programs, a concentration in medicine on educating people to avoid the inevitable results of poor lifestyles. All of these are basic to health reform but insurance coverage for all is the base and foundation and must be part of the solution and I see no way it will happen without a government plan as an option for universal coverage.
I have long believed that basic health insurance should be mandated for everyone from their entrance into the workforce and Social Security. Anyone obtaining a license for a car must show proof of required liability insurance. Why not the same for healthcare, a mandate for the employee and the employer? This would probably be at the level of catastrophic coverage with options for additional coveraged as needed or offered to each person and would have higher deductibles.
But a Government sponsored option must be part of the structure, and the inevitable competition with the insurance industry can only strengthen and improve healthcare and lower costs in the longrun. It is the basis of free enterprise. We have 'socialism' now in the form of plans given to Congress and the rest of the government or those with incomes high enough to buy into expensive private plans.
Medicare isn't perfect by any means but remains a lifesaver for those on Social Security and if Congresses of both parties hadn't raped the SS trust funds over the years would be in far better financial shape today. The Democrats have control the Government now. It's high time they act on all the things they have campaigned for.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Reveal and expose.....
The authorization of torture by the Bush-Cheney administration should be investigated by an independent authority of impeccable reputation and then fully revealed to the country and the world. It appears to be a shameful story which was planned from the offices of the highest officials in the White House.
After the smug self-righteousness of Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney and yes, often even Bush himself, clear violations of ethical and legal standards by them should be exposed, and the extent to which these individuals were responsible for these violations of human decency should be part of the historical record.
This morning I was listening to Jonathan Meachem discuss this on 'Morning Joe,' and Meachem quoted Arthur Schlesinger as having said that recording history helps a people identify and understand their life as does our individual memory. The record of history is our national memory, and in that sense whatever has taken place in the story of the 'War on Terror' should be known and recorded.
The catastrophic events of September 11 caused reactions in the White House and throughout the nation, and in each of us, that brought up the dimensions of a new and terrible reality to our shores and caused all kinds of reactions. No president or administration could be prepared to be confronted by such an event and all the unknown factors of that day. Was this the beginning of a whole series of attacks which would immediately become apparent? We can sympathize with fallible human beings feeling the weight of the responsibility of guiding the nation in such a circumstance. We can understand all of this but that must be balanced against our values and laws as a nation. Leaders in our government held the burden of a proper and effective response to this horrible new dimension of our collective life. The reaction of our leaders was to take us into war with a country they insisted had caused 9/11, and it turned out they lied.
All of the details of this history need to be known and understood, and if criminal acts were committed they should also be part of the record. The complications facing President Obama is how to react to this and how far to go if in fact there was criminal behavior in the White House. With everything facing his administration and the Congress, huge trials, or, perish the thought impeachments would paralyze the country and make even worse the partisanship which is epidemic in the way our politics work.
All of this faces each of us as citizens as well as our leaders. What kind of nation are we, what does our Constitution mean in our common life, where will and should all of this lead us as a people? Whatever the answer is, the facts should be known.
After the smug self-righteousness of Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney and yes, often even Bush himself, clear violations of ethical and legal standards by them should be exposed, and the extent to which these individuals were responsible for these violations of human decency should be part of the historical record.
This morning I was listening to Jonathan Meachem discuss this on 'Morning Joe,' and Meachem quoted Arthur Schlesinger as having said that recording history helps a people identify and understand their life as does our individual memory. The record of history is our national memory, and in that sense whatever has taken place in the story of the 'War on Terror' should be known and recorded.
The catastrophic events of September 11 caused reactions in the White House and throughout the nation, and in each of us, that brought up the dimensions of a new and terrible reality to our shores and caused all kinds of reactions. No president or administration could be prepared to be confronted by such an event and all the unknown factors of that day. Was this the beginning of a whole series of attacks which would immediately become apparent? We can sympathize with fallible human beings feeling the weight of the responsibility of guiding the nation in such a circumstance. We can understand all of this but that must be balanced against our values and laws as a nation. Leaders in our government held the burden of a proper and effective response to this horrible new dimension of our collective life. The reaction of our leaders was to take us into war with a country they insisted had caused 9/11, and it turned out they lied.
All of the details of this history need to be known and understood, and if criminal acts were committed they should also be part of the record. The complications facing President Obama is how to react to this and how far to go if in fact there was criminal behavior in the White House. With everything facing his administration and the Congress, huge trials, or, perish the thought impeachments would paralyze the country and make even worse the partisanship which is epidemic in the way our politics work.
All of this faces each of us as citizens as well as our leaders. What kind of nation are we, what does our Constitution mean in our common life, where will and should all of this lead us as a people? Whatever the answer is, the facts should be known.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
I guess I'm a socialist after all.
When I was a teenager I heard Norman Thomas speak at a church in Oak Park, Illinois. Six times Thomas had been a presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America. He was also a Presbyterian minister, had pastored a church in East Harlem, New York. He was a social liberal, a pacifist, a conscientious objector, and of course was a highly controversial character. He always denied being a Marxist and described himself as a 'Christian socialist.' I came away from hearing him not convinced that I could call myself a socialist as it seemed only a few steps away from communism which in my mind meant total government ownership and in Russia was a form of fascism, I believed. Though I found Mr. Thomas to present himself as a rather mild and gentle person with a twinkle and sense of humor. In our lifetime in America socialism hasn't been seen as a viable political factor or force in our politics, until now that is. Now I hear my conservative friends describe the president's proposed budget as a renewal of socialism. We hear that the free market system will be destroyed and business will be severely limited by confusing and restrictive government regulations. All of this is centered around proposals to find solutions for the financial crisis which is conceded to be epidemic.
The issue is whether the government making new regulations to control the excesses of the banking and lending institutions, ordering the way we do business can be called socialism.
The term ’socialism’ is a label or flag. I guess I might have to call myself a socialist because I believe in civil government and the idea that a democratically elected government can as ‘we the people’ regulate ourselves. Traffic laws are illustrative of this - without some orderly system of moving traffic on our roads and highways there would be total chaos. Intoxicated and reckless drivers need to be disciplined and punished if they commit crimes. But we all need speed limits, stated ways of proceeding in traffic, etc. So in the conduct of public business, financial transactions, banking, borrowing, mortgaging, advertising and selling products, making promises by contract and all the other transactions of daily living need order and rational sense. When we buy pajamas for our infant children we take comfort in knowing government regulations prohibit the manufacturers from selling materials that could be easily flammable.
Careful and thoughtful regulation of society is not the same as government ownership and the denial of private property and personal freedom. Is this some wild eyed subversion of society. or simply social order based on an intelligent ordering of our common life?
The issue is whether the government making new regulations to control the excesses of the banking and lending institutions, ordering the way we do business can be called socialism.
The term ’socialism’ is a label or flag. I guess I might have to call myself a socialist because I believe in civil government and the idea that a democratically elected government can as ‘we the people’ regulate ourselves. Traffic laws are illustrative of this - without some orderly system of moving traffic on our roads and highways there would be total chaos. Intoxicated and reckless drivers need to be disciplined and punished if they commit crimes. But we all need speed limits, stated ways of proceeding in traffic, etc. So in the conduct of public business, financial transactions, banking, borrowing, mortgaging, advertising and selling products, making promises by contract and all the other transactions of daily living need order and rational sense. When we buy pajamas for our infant children we take comfort in knowing government regulations prohibit the manufacturers from selling materials that could be easily flammable.
Careful and thoughtful regulation of society is not the same as government ownership and the denial of private property and personal freedom. Is this some wild eyed subversion of society. or simply social order based on an intelligent ordering of our common life?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
'Solve Every Problem' - to be sung to the tune of Climb Every Mountain
Year ago on a flight from Philadelphia to Houston I found myself surrounded by a group of engineers representing several companies and headed for the Johnson Space Center in order to bid on a government project. The guy sitting next to me asked what I did for a living and when he discovered my occupation, he announced to his friends that he had a 'preacher' to talk with. He then pitched his theory obviously more for his friend's amusement than mine that religion is becoming obsolete 'now that science and technology has within its grasp the ability to solve any problem known to mankind'. As I recall this was in January of 1964 and it seems like a hundred years ago.
The other day at Rotary, Jerry Griffin the former director of the Johnson Space Center talked about future plans for us to return to the moon and then on to Mars. He said, however, that with the retirement of the space shuttle which will happen later this year, for several years Americans will have to hop rides on the Russian Soyuze space craft in order to go to the space station as we won't have one a new model for 4 or 5 years. Griffin indicated he wasn't too thrilled with that solution.
Now we're struggling with problems that seemingly have no set solutions, at least that will easily placate all or most sides. Republicans are pouncing on the bonuses which the AIG executives got of the bail out money which was given to rescue that mammoth company because, we were told the whole economy would crash without it. Why didn't the government officials who issued those funds set up regulations limiting how it should be spent? One senator suggests suicide on the part of the executives as a way to satisfy the public. And the questions go deeper and are more complex - can we buy our way out of the current mess and how long will countries like China loan us the needed funds? Does anyone in the government actually understand all of these problems?
The Obama administration is two months old and already is feeling this heat as though these problems only appeared on his watch. But it's his Treasury Secretary who approved these massive fund transfers. And of course it's the Republican's job to lay the blame at the door of the White House.
We often heard commentators point out that with the election of this president more children can dream of wanting to become president some day. From the looks of things now it's good to remember that they also can choose not to.
The other day at Rotary, Jerry Griffin the former director of the Johnson Space Center talked about future plans for us to return to the moon and then on to Mars. He said, however, that with the retirement of the space shuttle which will happen later this year, for several years Americans will have to hop rides on the Russian Soyuze space craft in order to go to the space station as we won't have one a new model for 4 or 5 years. Griffin indicated he wasn't too thrilled with that solution.
Now we're struggling with problems that seemingly have no set solutions, at least that will easily placate all or most sides. Republicans are pouncing on the bonuses which the AIG executives got of the bail out money which was given to rescue that mammoth company because, we were told the whole economy would crash without it. Why didn't the government officials who issued those funds set up regulations limiting how it should be spent? One senator suggests suicide on the part of the executives as a way to satisfy the public. And the questions go deeper and are more complex - can we buy our way out of the current mess and how long will countries like China loan us the needed funds? Does anyone in the government actually understand all of these problems?
The Obama administration is two months old and already is feeling this heat as though these problems only appeared on his watch. But it's his Treasury Secretary who approved these massive fund transfers. And of course it's the Republican's job to lay the blame at the door of the White House.
We often heard commentators point out that with the election of this president more children can dream of wanting to become president some day. From the looks of things now it's good to remember that they also can choose not to.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Bunker - tonight on National Geographic cable
The promos on the National Geographic Channel announce that a program on Hitler's bunkers under Berlin will be shown tonight. It is known that Hitler spent the last months of World War II living in tunnels dug under Berlin and it's estimated that as many as 100 people were down there with him. Apparently this program will be the first opportunity to see how and where the Nazi leader spent his last days.
One of my favorite books is The Bunker by James P. O'Donnell. a correspondent who got to enter this series of tunnels dug deep under Berlin as the war was coming to an end. As I recall O'Donnell more-or-less accidentally found Hitler's rooms under the city. For 105 days Hitler and approximately 100 associates hunkered 55 feet under the burning city. Apparently Hitler had hiding places prepared all over Germany and moved from one to another, but his last days were spent in this bunker with his inner circle and his mistress Eva Braun. According to O'Donnell Hitler and Braun were married at the end of their stay there and they committed suicide by poison along with Goebbels, his wife and their six children in the very last hours of the war.
O'Dennell interviewed many of the survivors of this rat pack and included many accounts of those who were with Hitler. I misplaced or lost the hardback copy of O'Donnell's book but fortunately a few years ago the Amazon.com used book department was able to find a paperback copy which I now have safely preserved. It is a sobering record of an insane, bizarre leader and the deluded people who believed in him and huddled with him.
Not being fans of the Oscar programs, our set will be focused on this report on the Bunker. If you find a copy of The Bunker by O'Donnell, I suggest you buy it.
One of my favorite books is The Bunker by James P. O'Donnell. a correspondent who got to enter this series of tunnels dug deep under Berlin as the war was coming to an end. As I recall O'Donnell more-or-less accidentally found Hitler's rooms under the city. For 105 days Hitler and approximately 100 associates hunkered 55 feet under the burning city. Apparently Hitler had hiding places prepared all over Germany and moved from one to another, but his last days were spent in this bunker with his inner circle and his mistress Eva Braun. According to O'Donnell Hitler and Braun were married at the end of their stay there and they committed suicide by poison along with Goebbels, his wife and their six children in the very last hours of the war.
O'Dennell interviewed many of the survivors of this rat pack and included many accounts of those who were with Hitler. I misplaced or lost the hardback copy of O'Donnell's book but fortunately a few years ago the Amazon.com used book department was able to find a paperback copy which I now have safely preserved. It is a sobering record of an insane, bizarre leader and the deluded people who believed in him and huddled with him.
Not being fans of the Oscar programs, our set will be focused on this report on the Bunker. If you find a copy of The Bunker by O'Donnell, I suggest you buy it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Never In My Born Days....
Eugene Robinson, my favorite Op-Ed columnist in the Washington Post has written a thoughtful piece today on the mountain of issues facing our new president, which Robinson describes as 'a presidency on steroids.' We all know them, they're cataloged for us everyday and Robinson adds a new list to such things as the closing of Guantanamo, health insurance for children, changing unwanted policies from the Bush administration. The mess in the Middle East looms large. Now in addition the president's responsibility for this mammoth stimulus package may cause him to become in addition to his presidential role, an auto executive, a banker, a mortgage broker and quite possibly other jobs as well.
On top of all of this is the sad display of the House Republicans voting to a person against the $787 billion stimulus bill, and only Republican senators Specter, Snow and Collins daring to march out of step with their party. More than any other time that I can remember, Congress, the first branch of government is broken. It's always easier to see the faults than it is to find solutions, but the faults are glaring. It seems to me so long as Congress is organized on the seniority system with the inertia built into it, with members following the marching orders of the lobbyists, with the fact that unless they commit something scandalous enough to land them on the front page, most incumbents will be reelected term after term. In the case of the House of Representatives, two year terms dictate that members must begin campaigning for the next term on the day the present one begins. Senators, on the other hand, serve for six years, when I believe, four would be better.
A broken presidency can be fixed by voting out one person, that can't be accomplished in Congress.
On top of all of this is the sad display of the House Republicans voting to a person against the $787 billion stimulus bill, and only Republican senators Specter, Snow and Collins daring to march out of step with their party. More than any other time that I can remember, Congress, the first branch of government is broken. It's always easier to see the faults than it is to find solutions, but the faults are glaring. It seems to me so long as Congress is organized on the seniority system with the inertia built into it, with members following the marching orders of the lobbyists, with the fact that unless they commit something scandalous enough to land them on the front page, most incumbents will be reelected term after term. In the case of the House of Representatives, two year terms dictate that members must begin campaigning for the next term on the day the present one begins. Senators, on the other hand, serve for six years, when I believe, four would be better.
A broken presidency can be fixed by voting out one person, that can't be accomplished in Congress.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
When the race is ours.....
We have a black president, and an Hawaiian president, and an Indonesian and a partially Asian president with roots deep in Kenya as well as Kansas, who entered politics in the black neighborhoods of Chicago's South Side. All of this was brought home to me in a picture of the sharply contrasting elements and influences in Barack Obama's ethnic and cultural makeup in an article by Professor Dwight N. Hopkins of the University of Chicago Divinity School in the Christian Century magazine.
We Americans have lived under the one-drop-of-black-blood rule as a means of maintaining white supremacy from the time the first Africans were brought in chains to the new world. They and their children were designated as black as long as there was one drop of black blood in their makeup regardless of how white they may have looked.
I grew up in a western suburb of Chicago, Oak Park. Chicago was described as a thousand small towns or neighborhoods knit together and it certainly seemed that way. Called the second largest Polish city in the world, neighborhoods of almost every nationality and ethnic make up could be identified. In the midst of this kaleidoscope of many backgrounds was the stark contrast of white versus black. Blacks weren't even counted as citizens in the minds of many until after Emancipation and the end of the Civil War. We white Northerners often looked down on Southern white supremacists as blatant racists, but in practice we forced black people to stay in their own neighborhoods and turned a blind eye to their inferior schools and lack of playgrounds and social services others enjoyed from the same tax base.
The south side of Chicago had a large population of African Americans and had grown rapidly with the coming of World War II when both blacks and whites from the southern states emigrated to northern cities to work in the burgeoning defense industries. De facto segregation kept black persons in their own neighborhoods.
Professor Hopkins raises the interesting question of what race is Obama? The professor quotes Georgian Congressman John Lewis who has said that no black person who had come out of segregation and the civil rights movement could have been elected the first black president. And of course President Obama redefines what it means to be called black. His ancestors didn't come from the West African empires of long ago and therefore had no connection to the European slave trade. During the civil rights struggles Mr. Obama didn't live in the southern states but in Asia and the pacific islands. He didn't grow up in an American black church, the cradle of civil rights. He was born in Hawaii and grew up among Japanese Hawaiians, Chinese Hawaiians, Filipino Hawaiians, Pacific Island Hawaiians, Native Hawaiians and white Hawaiians. Whites are still a minority in Hawaii. Dr. Hopkinds points our that the black-white paradigm of the mainland 'did not dominate his reality.'
From age six to ten he lived in Indonesia and spoke Indonesian. He was also raised in a white environment. His Kansan mother (not from the South) reared him with the help of his white grandparents.
Yet he is our black President and is more African than most of our African American citizens. His father came here voluntarily from Kenya in east Africa as a student in 1959. Barack Obama was 22 when he moved to the South Side of Chicago and engaged in the tradition of segregation and the one-drop rule. He received three things in Chicago, a black family through marriage, a black community through his excperience of working as a community organizer, and a black church.
With the fascinating science of DNA we could all learn much of our backgrounds. Most of us today know nothing of our heritage more than three or four generations back, certainly not eight or ten and before. We have 'drops' we've never dreamed of, and are recipients of others, good or bad, who have made us who we are.
President Obama is perhaps the most 'American' of all American presidents and most like us. He is the result of the melting pot. Many years ago, long before any dream of an Obama presidency, I came to believe through my own observation and experience of the civil rights movement that the ultimate solution to the 'race issue,' so-called, would be intermarriage and the total blending of the races. I participated in civil rights activities in rather limited ways in comparison with many who were truly heroic in their willingness to sacrifice their careers as well as their own physical safety. But for all of us this election has meant a great step forward in weakening the one-drop rule.
We Americans have lived under the one-drop-of-black-blood rule as a means of maintaining white supremacy from the time the first Africans were brought in chains to the new world. They and their children were designated as black as long as there was one drop of black blood in their makeup regardless of how white they may have looked.
I grew up in a western suburb of Chicago, Oak Park. Chicago was described as a thousand small towns or neighborhoods knit together and it certainly seemed that way. Called the second largest Polish city in the world, neighborhoods of almost every nationality and ethnic make up could be identified. In the midst of this kaleidoscope of many backgrounds was the stark contrast of white versus black. Blacks weren't even counted as citizens in the minds of many until after Emancipation and the end of the Civil War. We white Northerners often looked down on Southern white supremacists as blatant racists, but in practice we forced black people to stay in their own neighborhoods and turned a blind eye to their inferior schools and lack of playgrounds and social services others enjoyed from the same tax base.
The south side of Chicago had a large population of African Americans and had grown rapidly with the coming of World War II when both blacks and whites from the southern states emigrated to northern cities to work in the burgeoning defense industries. De facto segregation kept black persons in their own neighborhoods.
Professor Hopkins raises the interesting question of what race is Obama? The professor quotes Georgian Congressman John Lewis who has said that no black person who had come out of segregation and the civil rights movement could have been elected the first black president. And of course President Obama redefines what it means to be called black. His ancestors didn't come from the West African empires of long ago and therefore had no connection to the European slave trade. During the civil rights struggles Mr. Obama didn't live in the southern states but in Asia and the pacific islands. He didn't grow up in an American black church, the cradle of civil rights. He was born in Hawaii and grew up among Japanese Hawaiians, Chinese Hawaiians, Filipino Hawaiians, Pacific Island Hawaiians, Native Hawaiians and white Hawaiians. Whites are still a minority in Hawaii. Dr. Hopkinds points our that the black-white paradigm of the mainland 'did not dominate his reality.'
From age six to ten he lived in Indonesia and spoke Indonesian. He was also raised in a white environment. His Kansan mother (not from the South) reared him with the help of his white grandparents.
Yet he is our black President and is more African than most of our African American citizens. His father came here voluntarily from Kenya in east Africa as a student in 1959. Barack Obama was 22 when he moved to the South Side of Chicago and engaged in the tradition of segregation and the one-drop rule. He received three things in Chicago, a black family through marriage, a black community through his excperience of working as a community organizer, and a black church.
With the fascinating science of DNA we could all learn much of our backgrounds. Most of us today know nothing of our heritage more than three or four generations back, certainly not eight or ten and before. We have 'drops' we've never dreamed of, and are recipients of others, good or bad, who have made us who we are.
President Obama is perhaps the most 'American' of all American presidents and most like us. He is the result of the melting pot. Many years ago, long before any dream of an Obama presidency, I came to believe through my own observation and experience of the civil rights movement that the ultimate solution to the 'race issue,' so-called, would be intermarriage and the total blending of the races. I participated in civil rights activities in rather limited ways in comparison with many who were truly heroic in their willingness to sacrifice their careers as well as their own physical safety. But for all of us this election has meant a great step forward in weakening the one-drop rule.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Chief Justice's Goof
The otherwise perfectly awesome inauguration of our new President hit an embarrassing speed bump when Chief Justice Roberts messed up the oath of office he was to administer to the President. He apparently tried to recite the 35 words from memory, and as my grandmother used to say, 'got his tongue wrapped around his eye tooth and couldn't see what he was talking about." Mr. Obama tried to correct the awkward incident but seemingly didn't recite the words exactly. I learned in 40 years as a minister to never try to remember ceremonial words like wedding vows, the mind plays tricks.
The beauty of the inauguration and the great speech the President delivered seemed to cover what had happened in the confusion of the recital of the oath. By the next day however, some people, mostly of conservative persuasion, raised questions of the legality of the inauguration. Chris Wallace of Fox News was shown saying that he doubted that Mr. Obama had really become President. Yesterday, the Chief Justice hauled himself and his robe down to the White House, and without using a Bible, but I imagine a typed index card, administered the oath of office in a private but photographically recorded ceremony. The law of the land has been followed.
In the first attempt at doing the oath Mrs. Obama held the Bible that Abraham Lincoln had used when he was sworn in by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. That set me to thinking. Taney was not only Chief Justice but a chief political enemy of Lincoln and the principal author of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most shockingly dismal documents of the American government and probably a major cause of the Civil War. A footnote is that Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of Roberts as Chief Justice. Taney gave the majority decision in the Dred Scott v Sandford decision that ruled among other issues that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States. "They were," he wrote, "altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Now of course. one of them is our Commander in Chief and President of the United States.
A fine book on the subject is "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney," by James F. Simon, a wonderful Civil War and Lincoln historian who died this last summer.
This isn't a case of history repeating itself, Roberts certainly doesn't sink to the level of Taney (pronounced Tawny) but an interesting comparison. Anyway, Barack Obama is our President, legally signed, sealed and delivered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
The beauty of the inauguration and the great speech the President delivered seemed to cover what had happened in the confusion of the recital of the oath. By the next day however, some people, mostly of conservative persuasion, raised questions of the legality of the inauguration. Chris Wallace of Fox News was shown saying that he doubted that Mr. Obama had really become President. Yesterday, the Chief Justice hauled himself and his robe down to the White House, and without using a Bible, but I imagine a typed index card, administered the oath of office in a private but photographically recorded ceremony. The law of the land has been followed.
In the first attempt at doing the oath Mrs. Obama held the Bible that Abraham Lincoln had used when he was sworn in by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. That set me to thinking. Taney was not only Chief Justice but a chief political enemy of Lincoln and the principal author of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most shockingly dismal documents of the American government and probably a major cause of the Civil War. A footnote is that Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of Roberts as Chief Justice. Taney gave the majority decision in the Dred Scott v Sandford decision that ruled among other issues that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States. "They were," he wrote, "altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Now of course. one of them is our Commander in Chief and President of the United States.
A fine book on the subject is "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney," by James F. Simon, a wonderful Civil War and Lincoln historian who died this last summer.
This isn't a case of history repeating itself, Roberts certainly doesn't sink to the level of Taney (pronounced Tawny) but an interesting comparison. Anyway, Barack Obama is our President, legally signed, sealed and delivered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
I thought a deficit was a debt
When the Bush/Cheney administration finally admitted that we are in a recession or economic turn-down, or whatever it can be called, they proposed and Congress passed a so-called bail-out package of $700 billion dollars. This was to be given primarily to the mortgage bankers and used to help the tens of thousands of people who were in trouble with these complicated mortgage plans that supposedly made it possible for people to buy million dollar homes when they thought they could only afford a couple of hundred thousand. Now it turns out that apparently the bankers haven't chosen to use the money they had been given (about 1/2 of the 700 billion) for that mortgage relief. They have decided instead to give the money to other banks and financial institutions. They also report that they don't think it's anyone's business what they did with the money and chose not to tell us. Forget whose money they were given. Mr.Paulsen has done with it what he pleased.
Now the new administration is talking about using another 300 billion mostly for tax relief for those who make less than two-hundred thousand a year. This so called stimulus package is intended to make life easier for the tax payers and it is hoped will cause people to spend more money, helping the economy. As a footnote, all of this will increase the deficit to 10 or is it 12 trillion dollars? Of course most of this money will continue to be borrowed from China, some from India and perhaps Brazil. Those countries of course are the nations with the fastest growing middle classes and are outpacing us at a rapid rate. In addition our new administration plans on presenting a massive and much needed national health plan which will cost many more billions but bring us up with other nations.
All of this makes about as much sense to me as most current economic discussion. If anyone of us found ourselves in serious debt with no known way to work our way out of it, how would we react to the advice that we need to go out and borrow as much money, or charge as much on credit cards as we can? Go to whoever will loan us funds and then spend all that we can? I know, bail out plans are supposed to make the sluggish economy work, but the debt also piles up. Unlike the government we can't just print more money without becoming counterfeiters, while apparently Uncle Sam can.
The sad thing for Mr. Obama is that he is inheriting this mess and we all know that deficit spending goes back to the Reagan administration and has been added to by many trillions by Dubyah. With the American public's inability to remember facts for very long, however, it will soon become Obama's deficit and mess.
Now the new administration is talking about using another 300 billion mostly for tax relief for those who make less than two-hundred thousand a year. This so called stimulus package is intended to make life easier for the tax payers and it is hoped will cause people to spend more money, helping the economy. As a footnote, all of this will increase the deficit to 10 or is it 12 trillion dollars? Of course most of this money will continue to be borrowed from China, some from India and perhaps Brazil. Those countries of course are the nations with the fastest growing middle classes and are outpacing us at a rapid rate. In addition our new administration plans on presenting a massive and much needed national health plan which will cost many more billions but bring us up with other nations.
All of this makes about as much sense to me as most current economic discussion. If anyone of us found ourselves in serious debt with no known way to work our way out of it, how would we react to the advice that we need to go out and borrow as much money, or charge as much on credit cards as we can? Go to whoever will loan us funds and then spend all that we can? I know, bail out plans are supposed to make the sluggish economy work, but the debt also piles up. Unlike the government we can't just print more money without becoming counterfeiters, while apparently Uncle Sam can.
The sad thing for Mr. Obama is that he is inheriting this mess and we all know that deficit spending goes back to the Reagan administration and has been added to by many trillions by Dubyah. With the American public's inability to remember facts for very long, however, it will soon become Obama's deficit and mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
