After years of deriding men for being such babies when they have a cold while we women have to slog through our daily lives with or without a cold, I now have shamefully to face a harsh reality: a man cold is worse than a regular cold. We all know that men appear to be pretty wussie when they have what we women have always regarded as the sniffles. The cold-suffering man lies listlessly on the sofa, wishing the proverbial someone--a wife or the nearest female--would fluff his pillow, hand him the remote lying inches from his hand, bring him a cool drink or something to soothe his troubled brow. He occasionally tosses in a sigh or a moan for good measure. Any female in the proximity rolls her eyes in disgust as she does or does not comply.
We women have looked askance at cold-suffering men for generations, basking in our own superiority. We say things like, "If men had to be pregnant for nine months, or--God forbid--give birth, civilization would have ended with pre-CroMagnon man." Or maybe we just continue to roll our eyes at the pathetic heap on the couch, knowing that we are tougher, stronger--heck, let's face it--better. I have been as guilty as the next woman.
Usually, when we get a cold, we grab a box of tissues along with the car keys or brief case or the children as we head out the door for our daily grind. Our noses become raw, our eyes, red, but the the work still gets done whether in the workplace or at home. Or at least that's what I had believed until I myself was the victim of a man cold.
A man cold, I now know, is far different from a woman cold. This epiphany came to me as I lay on the couch for two days, sniffling and coughing, too helpless to do anything else. And, worse yet, I don't have a wife to wait on me, with or without the rolling eyes or the looks of disdain. No, I was a woman with a man cold left to suffer on my own. It was horrible.
As one now aware of the existence of the man cold, I have a suggestion for Big Pharma. Spend less time researching things like pills we only have to take once a month to improve bone density, for example. All right, Sally may be right, and taking a pill once a month for osteoporosis might be more convenient than taking a pill once a day. But really? By the time someone needs a drug for osteoporosis, isn't she at least taking a daily vitamin or another drug any way?
If medical research can redirect some of its focus to something like a cure for the common cold, or at least the man cold--and having a a man cold is suffering--then I say, "Focus people! Sore throats, congested chests, stuffy noses, and raspy coughs demand attention now. Please?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Dear Santa: Please Bring Fat Bankers Some Gratitude and a Memory
"Merry Christmas." I think not. More like "Bah. Humbug!" Or "Mine! Mine! All mine!" After the American taxpayer bailed out the big financial institutions so that they wouldn't go under and pull us all down with them, Wall Streeters' bottom lines are healthy, their stock prices up, and their bonuses and salaries are huge. Hello Ebenezer!
And now, when Congress is entertaining some regulations for the institutions that ran amok, gambling as if they could never fail until they did, those same fat cats are sending in armies of their lobbyists to fight even the idea of changing anything. After all, they wonder, we're fine now. Why dwell on the past? When were we ever near financial ruin? Trust us!
They just don't get it. Why in the world not? Their kind of free enterprise was only free to them.. It cost us taxpayers plenty, and some are still paying with eminent foreclosures and nonexistent jobs. You guys are so very, very welcome. If their own personal investors had wiped out a wad of their very own money by engaging in ridiculously risky practices, would those fat cats give them a raise, a big bonus, and tell them to keep on doing what they were doing? You and I both know there is no way in hell that they would. They'd fire them in a heartbeat and warn all their friends not to trust that investor. If an MBA candidate failed an exam because he or she hadn't studied for it, would their recommendation be, "Don't bother studying the next time either. Maybe you'll get lucky." Come on! Give me a break. People who gamble until they lose everything and then keep repeating the same behavior are candidates for Gamblers Anonymous. Who in his right mind would give that gambler their life savings and send them off to Vegas? That seems to be what Big Banking expects from us taxpayers.
Also get a grip, reform-resisting members of Congress. At least pretend that you learned something. It's only been a little over a year now since we teetered perilously close to financial Armageddon. How short are your memories? Has the Haitian from Heroes been at your brains? The financial regulatory system we have now did not prevent or even alert us to the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did it? No!
I suggest that both the bankers and the reform-resistant members of Congress find their ethics and their souls and/or different campaign contributors (in the case of Congress) and take a good hard look at our broken financial regulatory system and fix it. ASAP. If they don't, those Congressmen and women and the greedy fat cats will be on Santa's Naughty List and mine.
And now, when Congress is entertaining some regulations for the institutions that ran amok, gambling as if they could never fail until they did, those same fat cats are sending in armies of their lobbyists to fight even the idea of changing anything. After all, they wonder, we're fine now. Why dwell on the past? When were we ever near financial ruin? Trust us!
They just don't get it. Why in the world not? Their kind of free enterprise was only free to them.. It cost us taxpayers plenty, and some are still paying with eminent foreclosures and nonexistent jobs. You guys are so very, very welcome. If their own personal investors had wiped out a wad of their very own money by engaging in ridiculously risky practices, would those fat cats give them a raise, a big bonus, and tell them to keep on doing what they were doing? You and I both know there is no way in hell that they would. They'd fire them in a heartbeat and warn all their friends not to trust that investor. If an MBA candidate failed an exam because he or she hadn't studied for it, would their recommendation be, "Don't bother studying the next time either. Maybe you'll get lucky." Come on! Give me a break. People who gamble until they lose everything and then keep repeating the same behavior are candidates for Gamblers Anonymous. Who in his right mind would give that gambler their life savings and send them off to Vegas? That seems to be what Big Banking expects from us taxpayers.
Also get a grip, reform-resisting members of Congress. At least pretend that you learned something. It's only been a little over a year now since we teetered perilously close to financial Armageddon. How short are your memories? Has the Haitian from Heroes been at your brains? The financial regulatory system we have now did not prevent or even alert us to the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did it? No!
I suggest that both the bankers and the reform-resistant members of Congress find their ethics and their souls and/or different campaign contributors (in the case of Congress) and take a good hard look at our broken financial regulatory system and fix it. ASAP. If they don't, those Congressmen and women and the greedy fat cats will be on Santa's Naughty List and mine.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Fame
“Fame! I want to live forever!” The song lyrics have become a way of life for some, and so the question is: Which came first? The insatiable thirst for fame or the reality show? I suppose that’s a matter for a psychiatrist, but it seems that people are more and more willing to do anything to become famous—some infamous in my view.
In recent weeks, we have seen a father try to get a reality show by having his children and wife lie about their youngest son’s so-called perilous balloon flight. This engrossed the news channels and the American public for most of a day and cost the state and federal governments’ untold amounts of money. Why would a father do this? He was seeking a reality show.
This past week, a couple crashed the black tie state dinner hosted for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. This couple—whom I won’t dignify by repeating their names--managed to have their photo taken with the president, vice president, and Rohm Emanuel while there, then bragged about their social faux pas by posting the pictures on Facebook. The Secret Service has a black eye, and the Senate and White House are now going to take valuable time to investigate—all because some social climbers who lie pathologically about who they are and what they have accomplished want a reality show. I swear, if Bravo or any other channel signs them on, I will never watch another show on that channel. We have to stop encouraging these people.
Do people seeking to be famous for being outrageous not stop to think about the consequences of their behavior? Of course they don’t. Their narcissism won’t let them. The rest of society pays a price for their folly. The next time a parent calls about some out-of-the-ordinary child mishap, will the emergency services hesitate for just a moment? Will some service be underfunded because of the money spent on a hoax? Will the Secret Service lose credibility at a time when our president has threats against his life too frequently? This is not funny, people.
The airwaves are saturated with reality shows because they are cheaper to produce, and—let’s face it—people watch them, including me in some cases. And this tirade of mine is not intended to lump all reality television into the same clump. Some of these shows celebrate a competition of talent: Top Chef, Project Runway, The Next Iron Chef, American Idol, and others. Some are makeovers that are inspiring like Extreme Home Makeover and The Biggest Loser; others are roads to life changes: Clean House, What Not to Wear, Super Nanny, etc. These do no harm and feature and sometimes reward good or improved behaviors.
What then can be the redeeming quality of Shot of Love with Tila Tequillia? Bad Girls? The Girls Next Door? And--I now apologize to even some members of my own family—how is it helpful to give a platform to assorted Real Housewives or Dallas Divas and Daughters? (Women who have chosen to be homemakers should not be trivialized by this spoiled lot. The real stay-at-home moms deserve more respect.) Because of this kind of reality television, people can become famous for contributing nothing to society except for their own shallow self-absorption. People can become famous for being infamously outrageous. These people make a living via a television contract for living their lives in front of a camera while being the most flamboyant self they can be.
I suppose this is the quintessential entrepreneurial endeavor for those who don’t like to work much or desire to act when they have no innate talent for it. I know this makes me sound insufferable for being so outraged by this kind of societal promotion of the success of some who have done little to earn it. I can’t help it. I know that these shows will go on. They have a devoted audience. All I can do is vent, and so I am.
In recent weeks, we have seen a father try to get a reality show by having his children and wife lie about their youngest son’s so-called perilous balloon flight. This engrossed the news channels and the American public for most of a day and cost the state and federal governments’ untold amounts of money. Why would a father do this? He was seeking a reality show.
This past week, a couple crashed the black tie state dinner hosted for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. This couple—whom I won’t dignify by repeating their names--managed to have their photo taken with the president, vice president, and Rohm Emanuel while there, then bragged about their social faux pas by posting the pictures on Facebook. The Secret Service has a black eye, and the Senate and White House are now going to take valuable time to investigate—all because some social climbers who lie pathologically about who they are and what they have accomplished want a reality show. I swear, if Bravo or any other channel signs them on, I will never watch another show on that channel. We have to stop encouraging these people.
Do people seeking to be famous for being outrageous not stop to think about the consequences of their behavior? Of course they don’t. Their narcissism won’t let them. The rest of society pays a price for their folly. The next time a parent calls about some out-of-the-ordinary child mishap, will the emergency services hesitate for just a moment? Will some service be underfunded because of the money spent on a hoax? Will the Secret Service lose credibility at a time when our president has threats against his life too frequently? This is not funny, people.
The airwaves are saturated with reality shows because they are cheaper to produce, and—let’s face it—people watch them, including me in some cases. And this tirade of mine is not intended to lump all reality television into the same clump. Some of these shows celebrate a competition of talent: Top Chef, Project Runway, The Next Iron Chef, American Idol, and others. Some are makeovers that are inspiring like Extreme Home Makeover and The Biggest Loser; others are roads to life changes: Clean House, What Not to Wear, Super Nanny, etc. These do no harm and feature and sometimes reward good or improved behaviors.
What then can be the redeeming quality of Shot of Love with Tila Tequillia? Bad Girls? The Girls Next Door? And--I now apologize to even some members of my own family—how is it helpful to give a platform to assorted Real Housewives or Dallas Divas and Daughters? (Women who have chosen to be homemakers should not be trivialized by this spoiled lot. The real stay-at-home moms deserve more respect.) Because of this kind of reality television, people can become famous for contributing nothing to society except for their own shallow self-absorption. People can become famous for being infamously outrageous. These people make a living via a television contract for living their lives in front of a camera while being the most flamboyant self they can be.
I suppose this is the quintessential entrepreneurial endeavor for those who don’t like to work much or desire to act when they have no innate talent for it. I know this makes me sound insufferable for being so outraged by this kind of societal promotion of the success of some who have done little to earn it. I can’t help it. I know that these shows will go on. They have a devoted audience. All I can do is vent, and so I am.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The U. S. Constitution Did Not Expire:
Not Even in Post-9/11 America
The Constitution is the Constitution, both before and after 9/11, until it is amended or an issue in question is addressed and clarified by the Supreme Court. I want to cringe when I hear people saying we should deal with our legal and military issues as if the U. S. Constitution no longer applied. I too was as dismayed when I saw what horror had been done to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the name of religious fanaticism. I am certain that the British have felt that way every time they experienced domestic terrorism by the Irish Republican Army , and that went on for centuries. The real and longer-lasting horror would be for terrorists to win because they let us destroy the rest of what our country is and represents out of our own hatred, fear, and zealotry.
We have laws determining how we try those who break our laws, and we simply cannot disregard things like the 5th and 6th Amendments. They still apply. The Founding Fathers made these laws and deemed them the right thing for us at a time when they were still fighting with the British, and events that we would call terrorism continued to happen during lulls between those wars. They did not let fear override their knowledge of what our country would be then, and we should not do so now.
The 5th Amendment is pretty unambiguous: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What exactly does the 6th Amendment say? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall be been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
When asked, most people--and, evidently, too many of our legislators—only recall that the Fifth Amendment is about not testifying against oneself. The underlined portions in the amendment above show that there are two other very important parts that address how this country tries those who commit crimes against us, whether those crimes are defined as terrorism, mass murder, or any other heinous travesty. Yes, the 9/11 perpetrators were terrorists, by any definition. They planned and committed the premeditated murder of all those trapped in the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as well as those who foiled their plans and crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field and the first responders who tried to rescue the victims. Their crime killed many and wounded our country's morale. Americans felt and continue to feel more vulnerable than they had felt since, perhaps, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War or the Revolutionary War Era.
If asked, "What rights do we have under the Sixth Amendment?" people reply that it has something to do with trial rights, if they can recall anything at all. They forget that the amendment does not specify that it is only U. S. citizens who have these rights. The rules apply but to anyone who breaks one of our laws on our soil. During the Glenn Beck inspired 9/12 rally, I saw Congressmen and women waving about a copy of the Constitution and claiming things about it that are not even correct. I would suggest that some of the legislators waving the Constitution aloft should read it instead.
The Glenn Beck view of 9/12 is not at all like the 9/12 I remember or that which my son, who still lives in New York and was working not far from the Towers on that awful day, remembers. Beck's is not the 9/12 that we all saw soon after the attacks. There was the initial shock and disbelief, and then there was selfless and fearless heroism as first responders risked personal safety, some even losing their lives, to help others. Crime was minimal as people worked together, even as night fell. That was the American spirit of can-do and we-will-not-be-beaten-down. Americans got back to work at being who we are: proud people who can face horror and remain who we are, what the Founding Fathers hoped we would be. When the British were burning down our early American cities, our founders did not decide we should be a military junta in order to be safe. Case in point: those British soldiers who committed what was called the Boston Massacre were defended in court by John Adams, even though he knew he would face criticism and stern condemnation in the press. Why? Because he believed in the kind of legal system that could ably serve to address even those acts of terrorism. After his initial criticism, he went on to be elected our first vice president and second president. Men like Adams and Washington and Jefferson and others did not want us to become the country their parents had fled. They saw a vision of the world our Constitution embodies.
Every time in history that one of our leaders allowed his fears to cloud what our founding document plainly says that we are-- including Adams when he later briefly enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts during his presidency-- they were condemned at the time and by history as well. Our Founding Fathers had seen troops on their own soil during the Revolutionary War which lasted over eight years and resulted in well over four thousand deaths. Even after that, they drew up our founding laws, including the Bill of Rights—ratified in 1791—which includes those pesky Fifth and Sixth Amendments some on the right would like to dismiss. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941resulted in 2,288 soldiers, sailors, and civilians killed, and we let our fears intern Japanese-Americans, many of whom were citizens—for no other reasons than our fear of all Japanese people. And to this day, it remains one of our great shames. After World War II, after over 290, 000 people had died in that war, we went back to being who we are meant to be. During the 1950's Red Scare when innocent people were guilty merely by accusation, cooler heads prevailed and voices like that of Joe McCarthy were silenced by reason.
My hope remains that the hate and fanaticism of the Tea Partiers and right-wing radio along with the politicians who fall into line with their rantings will also go the way of the McCarthy acolytes of my youth. The terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad, can and should be tried by the dictates of our laws with a speedy public trial with an impartial jury, and yes, tried in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed with the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. That is the way we tried Tim McVey, who killed over 150 people with his homemade truck bomb--including the children in the day care facility of the federal building—and Ramzi Yousef and others. Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and his conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While those terrorists failed to bring down both Towers in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Yousef and others caused great damage and senseless death and injury to others. They were punished. The system put in place by our Founding Fathers worked and worked well. Why are we so afraid of it now? Even George Will, no champion of Democrats or liberals, as well as NYC's Republican Mayor Bloomberg, agree that it is the right thing to do to try Khalid Sheik Muhammad in NYC.
Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not in any organized army we recognize as such nor is he a representative of any state against whom we are at war. Where the officer who shot and killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood will be by court martial, KSM is a different case. We are not under martial law, and I would hope that no one believes that necessary in what has come to be called "Post 9/11 America." Until our fears permit the rule of martial law, those laws in our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remain our laws, after 9/11 just as they were before 9/11. If we let them, fanatics-- either radical Islamists or homegrown fear mongers--will achieve what the 9/11 terrorists set out to do. They wanted to bring down the sign of our economic system and symbols of our government to destroy us. We cannot let them. Americans are not patient. We need to remember that those who would destroy us are.
They only win if we let them win. It will matter little if we only rebuild destroyed buildings and fight successful battles in Iraq and Afghanistan while we let politicians and hysterical fear shred the very document that defines what and who we are. We will have then won nothing and lost everything. That would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Not Even in Post-9/11 America
The Constitution is the Constitution, both before and after 9/11, until it is amended or an issue in question is addressed and clarified by the Supreme Court. I want to cringe when I hear people saying we should deal with our legal and military issues as if the U. S. Constitution no longer applied. I too was as dismayed when I saw what horror had been done to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the name of religious fanaticism. I am certain that the British have felt that way every time they experienced domestic terrorism by the Irish Republican Army , and that went on for centuries. The real and longer-lasting horror would be for terrorists to win because they let us destroy the rest of what our country is and represents out of our own hatred, fear, and zealotry.
We have laws determining how we try those who break our laws, and we simply cannot disregard things like the 5th and 6th Amendments. They still apply. The Founding Fathers made these laws and deemed them the right thing for us at a time when they were still fighting with the British, and events that we would call terrorism continued to happen during lulls between those wars. They did not let fear override their knowledge of what our country would be then, and we should not do so now.
The 5th Amendment is pretty unambiguous: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What exactly does the 6th Amendment say? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall be been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
When asked, most people--and, evidently, too many of our legislators—only recall that the Fifth Amendment is about not testifying against oneself. The underlined portions in the amendment above show that there are two other very important parts that address how this country tries those who commit crimes against us, whether those crimes are defined as terrorism, mass murder, or any other heinous travesty. Yes, the 9/11 perpetrators were terrorists, by any definition. They planned and committed the premeditated murder of all those trapped in the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as well as those who foiled their plans and crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field and the first responders who tried to rescue the victims. Their crime killed many and wounded our country's morale. Americans felt and continue to feel more vulnerable than they had felt since, perhaps, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War or the Revolutionary War Era.
If asked, "What rights do we have under the Sixth Amendment?" people reply that it has something to do with trial rights, if they can recall anything at all. They forget that the amendment does not specify that it is only U. S. citizens who have these rights. The rules apply but to anyone who breaks one of our laws on our soil. During the Glenn Beck inspired 9/12 rally, I saw Congressmen and women waving about a copy of the Constitution and claiming things about it that are not even correct. I would suggest that some of the legislators waving the Constitution aloft should read it instead.
The Glenn Beck view of 9/12 is not at all like the 9/12 I remember or that which my son, who still lives in New York and was working not far from the Towers on that awful day, remembers. Beck's is not the 9/12 that we all saw soon after the attacks. There was the initial shock and disbelief, and then there was selfless and fearless heroism as first responders risked personal safety, some even losing their lives, to help others. Crime was minimal as people worked together, even as night fell. That was the American spirit of can-do and we-will-not-be-beaten-down. Americans got back to work at being who we are: proud people who can face horror and remain who we are, what the Founding Fathers hoped we would be. When the British were burning down our early American cities, our founders did not decide we should be a military junta in order to be safe. Case in point: those British soldiers who committed what was called the Boston Massacre were defended in court by John Adams, even though he knew he would face criticism and stern condemnation in the press. Why? Because he believed in the kind of legal system that could ably serve to address even those acts of terrorism. After his initial criticism, he went on to be elected our first vice president and second president. Men like Adams and Washington and Jefferson and others did not want us to become the country their parents had fled. They saw a vision of the world our Constitution embodies.
Every time in history that one of our leaders allowed his fears to cloud what our founding document plainly says that we are-- including Adams when he later briefly enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts during his presidency-- they were condemned at the time and by history as well. Our Founding Fathers had seen troops on their own soil during the Revolutionary War which lasted over eight years and resulted in well over four thousand deaths. Even after that, they drew up our founding laws, including the Bill of Rights—ratified in 1791—which includes those pesky Fifth and Sixth Amendments some on the right would like to dismiss. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941resulted in 2,288 soldiers, sailors, and civilians killed, and we let our fears intern Japanese-Americans, many of whom were citizens—for no other reasons than our fear of all Japanese people. And to this day, it remains one of our great shames. After World War II, after over 290, 000 people had died in that war, we went back to being who we are meant to be. During the 1950's Red Scare when innocent people were guilty merely by accusation, cooler heads prevailed and voices like that of Joe McCarthy were silenced by reason.
My hope remains that the hate and fanaticism of the Tea Partiers and right-wing radio along with the politicians who fall into line with their rantings will also go the way of the McCarthy acolytes of my youth. The terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad, can and should be tried by the dictates of our laws with a speedy public trial with an impartial jury, and yes, tried in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed with the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. That is the way we tried Tim McVey, who killed over 150 people with his homemade truck bomb--including the children in the day care facility of the federal building—and Ramzi Yousef and others. Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and his conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While those terrorists failed to bring down both Towers in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Yousef and others caused great damage and senseless death and injury to others. They were punished. The system put in place by our Founding Fathers worked and worked well. Why are we so afraid of it now? Even George Will, no champion of Democrats or liberals, as well as NYC's Republican Mayor Bloomberg, agree that it is the right thing to do to try Khalid Sheik Muhammad in NYC.
Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not in any organized army we recognize as such nor is he a representative of any state against whom we are at war. Where the officer who shot and killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood will be by court martial, KSM is a different case. We are not under martial law, and I would hope that no one believes that necessary in what has come to be called "Post 9/11 America." Until our fears permit the rule of martial law, those laws in our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remain our laws, after 9/11 just as they were before 9/11. If we let them, fanatics-- either radical Islamists or homegrown fear mongers--will achieve what the 9/11 terrorists set out to do. They wanted to bring down the sign of our economic system and symbols of our government to destroy us. We cannot let them. Americans are not patient. We need to remember that those who would destroy us are.
They only win if we let them win. It will matter little if we only rebuild destroyed buildings and fight successful battles in Iraq and Afghanistan while we let politicians and hysterical fear shred the very document that defines what and who we are. We will have then won nothing and lost everything. That would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Monday, November 9, 2009
And the Wall Came Tumbling Down...Now What?
Twenty years ago this month--November 9, 1989—ordinary people began to take down the Berlin Wall using hammers, pickaxes, and any tool they could find. In the U. S. today, many give the late President Regan full credit, or at least the lion's share of it, for single-handedly ending the Cold War. And while he did play a part, it is disingenuous to assume he did it alone. In the process of ending the Cold War as well as reunifying Germany, President Regan had significant help, not the least of which was the ineptitude of the East German Communist Party Politburo's rule highlighted by Guenter Schabowski's press conference and announcement about the easement of travel restrictions. Other people and events of import include: Gorbachev's implementation of perestroika; Hungarians marching to demand democracy months earlier; Lech Walesa's Solidarity Movement in Poland in 1980, and the courage of the Czech people from Prague Spring to the Velvet Revolution. Equally important, President George H. W. Bush--or "Father Bush" as some in Europe call him to differentiate between him and his son—had the wisdom to encourage the unification of Germany, even though some European leaders feared the repercussions of this.
The relationship between Regan and Gorbachev was an important page in this history. Their friendly yet candid relationship took us from détente to perestroika, or openness. Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a Communist country quickly learned that it could not be a little bit open. Regan, always an eloquent speaker, made his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech on June 12, 1987, but others were working to achieve democracy in Eastern Europe before that, some, long before that.
In August of 1980, Lech Walesa organized the ship workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, and they went on strike. This was the birth of the Solidarity Movement which led to a democratic election making Walesa president in 1990. On that day in August, 1980, around 17,000 ship builders stopped work and rallied for a right to form an independent union. Solidarity achieved that goal 17 days later. And while the Soviet Union cracked down on Poland after this, Walesa's winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 reignited the underground. These rebels continued their work toward a free Poland, even while Walesa was in prison. Walesa, Solidarity, and the Polish people may not have chinked the Berlin Wall literally, but that movement sparked others, including those in East Germany as well as Hungary, to seek their own freedoms.
About eight months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, courageous Hungarians marched to demand democracy, ignoring the memory of a bloody and brutal put-down of a similar revolt by the Soviets in 1956. Because of their effort, 150 miles of barbed wire fencing came down to allow open the border between Austria and Hungary.
Even before these events, the Czech people continued to work to remove the yoke of repression that had been strengthened when Soviet tanks and troops rolled into Prague on August 20, 1968 (Prague Spring). This invasion resulted in the ouster of the Czechoslovakian leader, Alexander Dubcek and years of oppressive Communist rule. The efforts of the Czech people finally resulted in what has been called the Velvet Revolution that saw Dubcek reinstated on November 24, 1989. Their courage gave heart to others behind the Iron Curtain, and they should not be dismissed when we in the U. S. recall the end of the Cold War and take full credit for it.
Yes, on November 9, 1989, a concrete 12 foot wall topped with electrified barbed wire stretching 100 miles around West Berlin did come down, and history changed when it did. Today, former members of the Warsaw Pact—Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic and Slovenia (formerly Czechoslovakia)—are among the 28 members of NATO. When they left the Pact, the only country remaining was the former USSR.
What most people do tend to forget is that the historic event's occurring on the exact date of November 9th was more or less a fluke. Travel restrictions from East Berlin to West Berlin had already been easing due to perestroika as well as work between Helmut Kohl of West Germany and Eric Honecker of the East. Significant travel restrictions were lifted by November 4th and trains were taking East German people into West Germany by the thousands. West and East Berliners and others continued to demand more clarification on the restrictions which resulted in a press conference led by, perhaps, one of the more inept speakers on behalf of the East German Communist Party Politburo. As reporters asked Guenter Schabowski exactly when these new eases in travel would occur, he stammered around, searching for the right words, and said what was translated to mean "immediately." Reporters and others rapidly communicated this to their embassies in Germany as well as to radio and television stations, and the news spread rapidly. People came out in droves, eventually dancing in the streets and taking down the wall themselves. To this day, many may remember the pictures of young people standing atop the wall in exultation. Remarkably, not a shot was fired.
The wall was down, but there remained much work to do, the most pressing of which was: Should the two Germanys remain separate countries or should there be a unified Germany? Germans, as a whole, wanted the latter, but for some European leaders, the memories of Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm ruling a unified Germany that began two World Wars were still painfully present. Mitterand of France was especially leery, and both Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major, had reservations. Had it not been for the leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush, the unification might not have occurred when it did. Bush, Sr. was able to talk with other leaders and to show them that the advantages of a unified Germany far outweighed the disadvantages. The most remarkable thing to me is that the Bush, Sr. team did not gloat about their role in this. Did their willingness to work toward the greater good of the project mean that history should forget? Republicans seem to have forgotten this because I have yet to hear a GOP pundit mention anyone other than Regan. Bush 41 was not eloquent, and I did not agree with many of his domestic policies, but his international vision should not be forgotten by any of us, Democrats or Republicans. Had Bush 43 had that kind of vision, we would not be in Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been fought more decisively.
And so on this date, November 9, 2009, let us not forget that many brave people as well as President Regan helped to end the Cold War. Nameless people were jailed and/or died to end Communist oppression; furthermore, these small and large rebellions exposed a weak and failing economic and political system that was already in a state of decay. Instead of our bragging that we in the U. S. won the Cold War, it might be more correct to say, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it in an NPR interview today, to say that the USSR "lost the Cold War because the system did not work, and in time, the people knew it."
A further extrapolation of history—particularly noting 20th century events in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia that ended Communist domination of their countries-- should help us learn that revolutions are most successful if the people themselves rise up to demand it. Our system of government is not a one-size-fits-all model, and we need to be mindful of that. I still do not think we had any business going into Iraq, but I supported our going into Afghanistan after 9/11. In spite of that, I remain fearful that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to Afghanistan. The war was fought haphazardly for seven years, and now things are indeed a mess. If the Afghan people are too fearful or uninterested in changing their country, how can we expect to be successful? I do fear what will happen if we pull out with a nuclear and unstable Pakistan on its border, yet I do not know how we can control or pacify a huge and rugged country ruled by a tribal structure with an economic and political system that is Third World, if that. We need only to recall the former British Empire and the former USSR to know what could happen.
Today, we remember a significant historical event: the Berlin Wall came down. Today and tomorrow and the days that follow, we need to recall other historical events. Let them teach us what walls can come down, and whether the people themselves even want them to fall. Two quotations come to mind here: 1). George Santayana--"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 2). David McCullough—"History is a guide in perilous times."
Some facts were heard on NPR/s WMNF in Naples Florida, today. Other information came from Making History by Howard Sargent: "Cold War International History Project Documents and Papers," and www.historyquotes.com.
The relationship between Regan and Gorbachev was an important page in this history. Their friendly yet candid relationship took us from détente to perestroika, or openness. Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a Communist country quickly learned that it could not be a little bit open. Regan, always an eloquent speaker, made his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech on June 12, 1987, but others were working to achieve democracy in Eastern Europe before that, some, long before that.
In August of 1980, Lech Walesa organized the ship workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, and they went on strike. This was the birth of the Solidarity Movement which led to a democratic election making Walesa president in 1990. On that day in August, 1980, around 17,000 ship builders stopped work and rallied for a right to form an independent union. Solidarity achieved that goal 17 days later. And while the Soviet Union cracked down on Poland after this, Walesa's winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 reignited the underground. These rebels continued their work toward a free Poland, even while Walesa was in prison. Walesa, Solidarity, and the Polish people may not have chinked the Berlin Wall literally, but that movement sparked others, including those in East Germany as well as Hungary, to seek their own freedoms.
About eight months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, courageous Hungarians marched to demand democracy, ignoring the memory of a bloody and brutal put-down of a similar revolt by the Soviets in 1956. Because of their effort, 150 miles of barbed wire fencing came down to allow open the border between Austria and Hungary.
Even before these events, the Czech people continued to work to remove the yoke of repression that had been strengthened when Soviet tanks and troops rolled into Prague on August 20, 1968 (Prague Spring). This invasion resulted in the ouster of the Czechoslovakian leader, Alexander Dubcek and years of oppressive Communist rule. The efforts of the Czech people finally resulted in what has been called the Velvet Revolution that saw Dubcek reinstated on November 24, 1989. Their courage gave heart to others behind the Iron Curtain, and they should not be dismissed when we in the U. S. recall the end of the Cold War and take full credit for it.
Yes, on November 9, 1989, a concrete 12 foot wall topped with electrified barbed wire stretching 100 miles around West Berlin did come down, and history changed when it did. Today, former members of the Warsaw Pact—Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic and Slovenia (formerly Czechoslovakia)—are among the 28 members of NATO. When they left the Pact, the only country remaining was the former USSR.
What most people do tend to forget is that the historic event's occurring on the exact date of November 9th was more or less a fluke. Travel restrictions from East Berlin to West Berlin had already been easing due to perestroika as well as work between Helmut Kohl of West Germany and Eric Honecker of the East. Significant travel restrictions were lifted by November 4th and trains were taking East German people into West Germany by the thousands. West and East Berliners and others continued to demand more clarification on the restrictions which resulted in a press conference led by, perhaps, one of the more inept speakers on behalf of the East German Communist Party Politburo. As reporters asked Guenter Schabowski exactly when these new eases in travel would occur, he stammered around, searching for the right words, and said what was translated to mean "immediately." Reporters and others rapidly communicated this to their embassies in Germany as well as to radio and television stations, and the news spread rapidly. People came out in droves, eventually dancing in the streets and taking down the wall themselves. To this day, many may remember the pictures of young people standing atop the wall in exultation. Remarkably, not a shot was fired.
The wall was down, but there remained much work to do, the most pressing of which was: Should the two Germanys remain separate countries or should there be a unified Germany? Germans, as a whole, wanted the latter, but for some European leaders, the memories of Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm ruling a unified Germany that began two World Wars were still painfully present. Mitterand of France was especially leery, and both Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major, had reservations. Had it not been for the leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush, the unification might not have occurred when it did. Bush, Sr. was able to talk with other leaders and to show them that the advantages of a unified Germany far outweighed the disadvantages. The most remarkable thing to me is that the Bush, Sr. team did not gloat about their role in this. Did their willingness to work toward the greater good of the project mean that history should forget? Republicans seem to have forgotten this because I have yet to hear a GOP pundit mention anyone other than Regan. Bush 41 was not eloquent, and I did not agree with many of his domestic policies, but his international vision should not be forgotten by any of us, Democrats or Republicans. Had Bush 43 had that kind of vision, we would not be in Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been fought more decisively.
And so on this date, November 9, 2009, let us not forget that many brave people as well as President Regan helped to end the Cold War. Nameless people were jailed and/or died to end Communist oppression; furthermore, these small and large rebellions exposed a weak and failing economic and political system that was already in a state of decay. Instead of our bragging that we in the U. S. won the Cold War, it might be more correct to say, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it in an NPR interview today, to say that the USSR "lost the Cold War because the system did not work, and in time, the people knew it."
A further extrapolation of history—particularly noting 20th century events in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia that ended Communist domination of their countries-- should help us learn that revolutions are most successful if the people themselves rise up to demand it. Our system of government is not a one-size-fits-all model, and we need to be mindful of that. I still do not think we had any business going into Iraq, but I supported our going into Afghanistan after 9/11. In spite of that, I remain fearful that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to Afghanistan. The war was fought haphazardly for seven years, and now things are indeed a mess. If the Afghan people are too fearful or uninterested in changing their country, how can we expect to be successful? I do fear what will happen if we pull out with a nuclear and unstable Pakistan on its border, yet I do not know how we can control or pacify a huge and rugged country ruled by a tribal structure with an economic and political system that is Third World, if that. We need only to recall the former British Empire and the former USSR to know what could happen.
Today, we remember a significant historical event: the Berlin Wall came down. Today and tomorrow and the days that follow, we need to recall other historical events. Let them teach us what walls can come down, and whether the people themselves even want them to fall. Two quotations come to mind here: 1). George Santayana--"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 2). David McCullough—"History is a guide in perilous times."
Some facts were heard on NPR/s WMNF in Naples Florida, today. Other information came from Making History by Howard Sargent: "Cold War International History Project Documents and Papers," and www.historyquotes.com.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
President Obama Wins the Nobel Prize for Peace. And This Is a Bad Thing Because?
Yesterday, President Obama awakened to learn that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. In his acknowledgement, he confessed his humility at being awarded the prize, and confessed that he did not feel as worthy as some earlier laureates whom he had much admired. Nonetheless, he said that he would accept the prize as an acknowledgement of what this country can do and will try to do to live up to the ideals of our founding documents.
This did not stop the derision from some who found him less than deserving, some even saying that he should decline the prize. To date, the only person who has turned down the prize was Le Duc Tho, the leader of North Vietnam who was awarded the prize along with Henry Kissinger for their efforts on the Viet Nam Peace Accords. Rush Limbaugh even said that he agreed with the Taliban that President Obama did not deserve the honor. Glen Beck was, as usual, apoplectic. A few sane voices on the right, among them John McCain and Tim Pawlenty, acknowledged what many of us feel: that it is an honor for a sitting President of the United States to receive this recognition.
One of the principal reasons for the awarding of the Nobel Prize is to recognize and honor "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations…." (http://nobelprize.org) This year, Barak Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." According to the Nobel Prize web site, 205 names were submitted in 2009, thirty-three of which were organizations. The Nobel Committee does not release the names of the other entries for fifty years, and so we do not know the nature of those competing with our president. This, however, does not diminish the honor of his being awarded the prize.
Was I surprised? Yes, I was as I had heard no rumblings of this possibility. He is a new president, but he has made many efforts to rectify our standing in the eyes of the world. (If you read the list of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates from 1980 to 2009, you will find that about ten of them were given for "efforts," not for accomplishments. The prize is frequently given to those who espouse diplomacy as a tool for solving conflict, not something to be denounced.
President Obama has announced our attempt to close Gitmo, a black eye on our reputation as a nation of laws, and while it is as yet to be accomplished, he and his Justice Department are working to realize this promise. He has spoken out for the reduction of nuclear proliferation and is working with other nations to make it a reality. He has spoken to the Arab people on Al Jazeera to stress that we Americans do not hate all Muslims, thereby giving some in the Muslim world less reason to automatically hate us. He is attempting to work with those in the Middle East before the situation gets any worse. If the eight years of the G. W. Bush presidency taught us anything, it was that nations ignore the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians at their peril and that a chauvinistic attitude toward the rest of the world makes them less likely to want to work with us. "My way or the highway" is a bully's approach to dealing with others. Some may follow out of fear, but others will hate us, and in some of those countries, a hate will simmer and bubble over into American-hating fanatics that perpetrate events like those of 9/11. We must know our enemies in order to deal with them intelligently, and the best way to get to know people is to talk with them. That does not make you a wimp. Quite the contrary. Most bullies back down when their false bravado is met with one who does not cringe in their midst.
Our President just won an honor for which we should be proud. Perhaps, that will make other nations more willing to work with us to address many of the problems facing the world today. Is that a bad thing? I think not.
This did not stop the derision from some who found him less than deserving, some even saying that he should decline the prize. To date, the only person who has turned down the prize was Le Duc Tho, the leader of North Vietnam who was awarded the prize along with Henry Kissinger for their efforts on the Viet Nam Peace Accords. Rush Limbaugh even said that he agreed with the Taliban that President Obama did not deserve the honor. Glen Beck was, as usual, apoplectic. A few sane voices on the right, among them John McCain and Tim Pawlenty, acknowledged what many of us feel: that it is an honor for a sitting President of the United States to receive this recognition.
One of the principal reasons for the awarding of the Nobel Prize is to recognize and honor "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations…." (http://nobelprize.org) This year, Barak Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." According to the Nobel Prize web site, 205 names were submitted in 2009, thirty-three of which were organizations. The Nobel Committee does not release the names of the other entries for fifty years, and so we do not know the nature of those competing with our president. This, however, does not diminish the honor of his being awarded the prize.
Was I surprised? Yes, I was as I had heard no rumblings of this possibility. He is a new president, but he has made many efforts to rectify our standing in the eyes of the world. (If you read the list of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates from 1980 to 2009, you will find that about ten of them were given for "efforts," not for accomplishments. The prize is frequently given to those who espouse diplomacy as a tool for solving conflict, not something to be denounced.
President Obama has announced our attempt to close Gitmo, a black eye on our reputation as a nation of laws, and while it is as yet to be accomplished, he and his Justice Department are working to realize this promise. He has spoken out for the reduction of nuclear proliferation and is working with other nations to make it a reality. He has spoken to the Arab people on Al Jazeera to stress that we Americans do not hate all Muslims, thereby giving some in the Muslim world less reason to automatically hate us. He is attempting to work with those in the Middle East before the situation gets any worse. If the eight years of the G. W. Bush presidency taught us anything, it was that nations ignore the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians at their peril and that a chauvinistic attitude toward the rest of the world makes them less likely to want to work with us. "My way or the highway" is a bully's approach to dealing with others. Some may follow out of fear, but others will hate us, and in some of those countries, a hate will simmer and bubble over into American-hating fanatics that perpetrate events like those of 9/11. We must know our enemies in order to deal with them intelligently, and the best way to get to know people is to talk with them. That does not make you a wimp. Quite the contrary. Most bullies back down when their false bravado is met with one who does not cringe in their midst.
Our President just won an honor for which we should be proud. Perhaps, that will make other nations more willing to work with us to address many of the problems facing the world today. Is that a bad thing? I think not.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tea without History or Sympathy
By Karen Esham - September 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm EDT
Watching the Tea Party type demonstration on September 12 was a bit like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole. When those of us on the left protested anything during the Bush years--or ever for that matter--we were un-American. Now, fomenting revolution is a blessed occurrence, according to Fox News, Freedom works, and others. I only wish some of the protesters and right-wing commentators would brush up on their history once in a while. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That meant no representation at all, not just representation for which you did not vote.
And why all this furor now? When Clinton left office, Bush was left with a surplus. It was his tax cuts and spending and unfunded mandates with his Republican Congress that created the deficit and left us in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. It was his Secretary of the Treasury who did not oversee the first outlay of TARP, etc. And now, because Barack Obama is president, the malcontents cry out, "Socialism is upon us!" or "Fascism is here!" or "Chairman Obama!" or "They're trying to make us like France!" (Again, a little reading of history might help them decide which movement is which and what they really mean, but hey! Why get factual at this point!)
I've always found it amusing to be called liberal elite by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Liberal I am, but elite? In whose book? Technically, I am not even middle class any more. I am very well educated, but as a retired school teacher, what I make from my retirement and what I can make consulting here and there does not even put me into the middle class these days. But you know what? I happily pay my taxes. I know when I see an ambulance or a policeman, my taxes help pay for that. I use the public library. I drive on the highways, use public transportation, fly into airports, count on clean water and federally inspected meat and produce. I want my military well equipped and my veterans well cared for. I want programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunches available for students. I believe in help for the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. These things do not come free. My taxes help pay for them, and I pay them willingly. And I would happily pay "death taxes" if I only had enough money to will to my children, if only I would ever have that much to leave!
When the protesters were protesting about their taxes and government spending, they drove on those roads, gathered in those parks, were protected by police forces. Who do they think paid for those amenities and services?
As a liberal who has protested a thing or two in her day, I do support every person's right to protest, petition, and to speak. I do understand why many are upset with the role government has been forced to play because of the economic melt down caused by some Wall Street fat cats. I am also upset with the state of the economy, but I remember how we got here. Until we all learn to be less susceptible to the extremes and shrill voices on the right--or the left, for that matter--none of us will have the kind of country we want to have.
Tea baggers, wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a great country where you are permitted to protest, but while you do so, you are protected by those whose services are paid for by taxes. And please, when you use history, get your facts straight.
Watching the Tea Party type demonstration on September 12 was a bit like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole. When those of us on the left protested anything during the Bush years--or ever for that matter--we were un-American. Now, fomenting revolution is a blessed occurrence, according to Fox News, Freedom works, and others. I only wish some of the protesters and right-wing commentators would brush up on their history once in a while. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That meant no representation at all, not just representation for which you did not vote.
And why all this furor now? When Clinton left office, Bush was left with a surplus. It was his tax cuts and spending and unfunded mandates with his Republican Congress that created the deficit and left us in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. It was his Secretary of the Treasury who did not oversee the first outlay of TARP, etc. And now, because Barack Obama is president, the malcontents cry out, "Socialism is upon us!" or "Fascism is here!" or "Chairman Obama!" or "They're trying to make us like France!" (Again, a little reading of history might help them decide which movement is which and what they really mean, but hey! Why get factual at this point!)
I've always found it amusing to be called liberal elite by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Liberal I am, but elite? In whose book? Technically, I am not even middle class any more. I am very well educated, but as a retired school teacher, what I make from my retirement and what I can make consulting here and there does not even put me into the middle class these days. But you know what? I happily pay my taxes. I know when I see an ambulance or a policeman, my taxes help pay for that. I use the public library. I drive on the highways, use public transportation, fly into airports, count on clean water and federally inspected meat and produce. I want my military well equipped and my veterans well cared for. I want programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunches available for students. I believe in help for the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. These things do not come free. My taxes help pay for them, and I pay them willingly. And I would happily pay "death taxes" if I only had enough money to will to my children, if only I would ever have that much to leave!
When the protesters were protesting about their taxes and government spending, they drove on those roads, gathered in those parks, were protected by police forces. Who do they think paid for those amenities and services?
As a liberal who has protested a thing or two in her day, I do support every person's right to protest, petition, and to speak. I do understand why many are upset with the role government has been forced to play because of the economic melt down caused by some Wall Street fat cats. I am also upset with the state of the economy, but I remember how we got here. Until we all learn to be less susceptible to the extremes and shrill voices on the right--or the left, for that matter--none of us will have the kind of country we want to have.
Tea baggers, wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a great country where you are permitted to protest, but while you do so, you are protected by those whose services are paid for by taxes. And please, when you use history, get your facts straight.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Wanted: Health Care Reform and Some Profiles in Courage
On September 10, President Obama presented his health care reform proposal to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people. To those Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who were frustrated with the as yet unarticulated health care plan, he provided answers. To those who had disseminated falsehoods about a Senate bill yet to be written or a House bill yet to be reconciled—misinformation about death panels, paying for abortions, subsidies for illegal immigrants, the availability and security of Medicare, President Obama called them what they were: lies.
He called on Americans to be their best, and cited the late Senator Teddy Kennedy’s letter to Obama where the late Senator reminded us that it is an American character trait to have “concern and regard for the plight of others.” Kennedy had spoken of the “character of our country.” Who indeed are we, and what is our character if we continue to ignore the fact that people in this country can die, just because they cannot afford health care?
There are so many problems with our current health care system, and we all know, as the President said, that many of us live “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” if we have no insurance, poor insurance, or lose our insurance if it is taken from us. Any of us can lose the insurance we have—if we have it—if we move, lose a job, change jobs, or if our pension plans can’t continue providing it.
On MSNBC, one report displayed a graphic showing that 46.3 million people in 2008 were uninsured. And now, it is far worse, in part because of the loss of full-time jobs that provide benefits and the economic meltdown of the past year. For the last 12 months, 17,000 a day have become uninsured. What difference does it make if we have gifted physicians and well-equipped hospitals if one has no access to them because he or she lives in the wrong area, has no insurance, or cannot afford the co-pay and uncovered insurance expenses? (Just today, I learned that my Medicare advantage plan will not cover the flu, pneumonia, and shingles vaccines that my physician wants me to have because I am 65 and a long-time sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis. The cost is around $300-plus that I will have to pay myself or risk the resultant illnesses. I will do it, of course, but on my teacher’s pension, it will be difficult. I am just fortunate that I can manage to afford it at all. I know that there are many more who cannot.)
Despite this obvious and desperate need for reform, despite the obvious fact that the status quo cannot be maintained, the misrepresentations continue. Leader Boehner reiterated the lie about coverage for illegal immigrants the following day. During the speech, Minority Whip Cantor texted throughout. Representative Joe Wilson shouted out, “You lie,” pointing at the President as he spoke. Governor Rick Perry of Texas throws out threats of secession as if we had never fought a bloody Civil War to resolve that issue. Former Representative Tom DeLay and some current members of Congress are “not sure” President Obama was born in the United States, despite ample proof to the contrary. Right wing radio and some Republicans in office have fanned the flames of the incivility of the August town hall meetings. Few have even bothered to distance themselves from those who liken the President to Hitler and Mao or to those who claim the President is not the president because he was not born in the United States, despite more than adequate proof. They do nothing to distance themselves from those who shout they want their country back or that they are not “represented” because the person for who they voted did not win. Yes, these voices were loud, but what were they saying that made sense? Others at the town hall meetings who wanted answers heard angry shouting and insipient madness from some of the audience--and occasionally from the congressperson holding the meeting--when they wanted answers.
It has been nearly a century since Teddy Roosevelt called for health reform, and sixty-six years since John Dingle, Sr. introduced a bill for comprehensive health reform in 1943. The issues Congressional committees are working on now are the same issues. To those who say that Congress is “rushing” on the health care reform issue, I say, “Are you kidding me?” More than half a century, minimum, is not speedy in anyone’s universe.
Finally, I would ask all the Congress people who seem to be opposed to anything interfering with the profits of the insurance companies by opposing things like insurance exchanges, the very things that guarantee the kind of health care they enjoy, to give up their own insurance if they think it is such a bad idea. If they sincerely oppose the concept, it’s only right that they should. Isn’t it only right that the insurance available to Congress people be available to us as well.
Members of Congress need to remember that they work for their constituents’ well being, not for their own election. Where are the Profiles in Courage in the 21st century? It is up to them to step up and do what is right and just, not only that which is easy and expedient. I say to them, “Be worthy of the office you hold.” And while I’m at it, “Behave like adults, not like petulant children willing to have a hissy fit if you don’t get 100% of what you want. There are 535 of you representing 50 very diverse states. You all have to give a little.” Everyone needs to be more civil, more thoughtful, more willing to walk that mile in another’s shoes.
Let us all try to be worthy of the country in which we live. Let us all try to live up to the “character of our country,” as the late Senator Kennedy asked us to.
He called on Americans to be their best, and cited the late Senator Teddy Kennedy’s letter to Obama where the late Senator reminded us that it is an American character trait to have “concern and regard for the plight of others.” Kennedy had spoken of the “character of our country.” Who indeed are we, and what is our character if we continue to ignore the fact that people in this country can die, just because they cannot afford health care?
There are so many problems with our current health care system, and we all know, as the President said, that many of us live “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” if we have no insurance, poor insurance, or lose our insurance if it is taken from us. Any of us can lose the insurance we have—if we have it—if we move, lose a job, change jobs, or if our pension plans can’t continue providing it.
On MSNBC, one report displayed a graphic showing that 46.3 million people in 2008 were uninsured. And now, it is far worse, in part because of the loss of full-time jobs that provide benefits and the economic meltdown of the past year. For the last 12 months, 17,000 a day have become uninsured. What difference does it make if we have gifted physicians and well-equipped hospitals if one has no access to them because he or she lives in the wrong area, has no insurance, or cannot afford the co-pay and uncovered insurance expenses? (Just today, I learned that my Medicare advantage plan will not cover the flu, pneumonia, and shingles vaccines that my physician wants me to have because I am 65 and a long-time sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis. The cost is around $300-plus that I will have to pay myself or risk the resultant illnesses. I will do it, of course, but on my teacher’s pension, it will be difficult. I am just fortunate that I can manage to afford it at all. I know that there are many more who cannot.)
Despite this obvious and desperate need for reform, despite the obvious fact that the status quo cannot be maintained, the misrepresentations continue. Leader Boehner reiterated the lie about coverage for illegal immigrants the following day. During the speech, Minority Whip Cantor texted throughout. Representative Joe Wilson shouted out, “You lie,” pointing at the President as he spoke. Governor Rick Perry of Texas throws out threats of secession as if we had never fought a bloody Civil War to resolve that issue. Former Representative Tom DeLay and some current members of Congress are “not sure” President Obama was born in the United States, despite ample proof to the contrary. Right wing radio and some Republicans in office have fanned the flames of the incivility of the August town hall meetings. Few have even bothered to distance themselves from those who liken the President to Hitler and Mao or to those who claim the President is not the president because he was not born in the United States, despite more than adequate proof. They do nothing to distance themselves from those who shout they want their country back or that they are not “represented” because the person for who they voted did not win. Yes, these voices were loud, but what were they saying that made sense? Others at the town hall meetings who wanted answers heard angry shouting and insipient madness from some of the audience--and occasionally from the congressperson holding the meeting--when they wanted answers.
It has been nearly a century since Teddy Roosevelt called for health reform, and sixty-six years since John Dingle, Sr. introduced a bill for comprehensive health reform in 1943. The issues Congressional committees are working on now are the same issues. To those who say that Congress is “rushing” on the health care reform issue, I say, “Are you kidding me?” More than half a century, minimum, is not speedy in anyone’s universe.
Finally, I would ask all the Congress people who seem to be opposed to anything interfering with the profits of the insurance companies by opposing things like insurance exchanges, the very things that guarantee the kind of health care they enjoy, to give up their own insurance if they think it is such a bad idea. If they sincerely oppose the concept, it’s only right that they should. Isn’t it only right that the insurance available to Congress people be available to us as well.
Members of Congress need to remember that they work for their constituents’ well being, not for their own election. Where are the Profiles in Courage in the 21st century? It is up to them to step up and do what is right and just, not only that which is easy and expedient. I say to them, “Be worthy of the office you hold.” And while I’m at it, “Behave like adults, not like petulant children willing to have a hissy fit if you don’t get 100% of what you want. There are 535 of you representing 50 very diverse states. You all have to give a little.” Everyone needs to be more civil, more thoughtful, more willing to walk that mile in another’s shoes.
Let us all try to be worthy of the country in which we live. Let us all try to live up to the “character of our country,” as the late Senator Kennedy asked us to.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Don't Want Health Care Reform? Must Be Nice to Live in LaLa Land.
Unlike everyone else on the planet, I am waiting to see what is in the final health care bill before I implode. I haven't seen so many Chicken Little's running about since Harry and Louise (or whoever those terribly concerned people were who agonized over the Clinton health care plan sitting at their kitchen table every single day until they killed the bill.) The anti-health-care camp keeps protesting about big government takeover of medicine, of government bureaucracy getting in the way of the sacred doctor/patient relationship. They obviously have better health care than I've had in many years. In their perfect world, their doctor tells them what they want, and magically, it is done. This drug is prescribed. They get it! This treatment is thought to be beneficial. It is done. Must be nice to live in Lala Land.
In the world in which I live-- the world in which most of us live--bureaucrats tell us every single day what we can and cannot do, what treatments we can and cannot have, what drugs we may and may not be prescribed. Within the past month, my doctor gave me samples of a drug which improved a chronic medical condition for me appreciably. She therefore prescribed it. The group from whom I get my meds-- a large pharmaceutical group that is part of a Medicare advantage plan-- told me they could not allow me to have it because they did not have it on their list for patients with my condition. I purchased a month's worth myself, out of pocket, for $101.00.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter stating. "X manages your prescription drug benefit at the request of your health plan. Certain non-preferred drugs are not covered by our plan. Your benefit plan requires that we review requests for coverage of certain non-preferred drugs…." It goes on to say that my doctor can further explain why I need this drug and that she had done so. Then they noted that my request for this "is approved." However, there is a huge BUT. "You should know that in addition to being reviewed for coverage eligibility, every prescription also undergoes a professional practice and safety review. (And now in bold print) If this review results in any concern, you might receive a quantity of medication that is less than what your doctor prescribed." (This medicine is not a narcotic, but they were treating it as though it were.)
These Nay-Sayers in Congress and pundits who talk about all the choices we have and all the non-interference we now have with our plans certainly don't have any idea what people like me experience. I have no choice in the insurance I have. (And so, for many of us, it matters not how many insurance companies there are in this country, does it?) My teacher retirement plan put all Medicare eligible retirees into a Medicare advantage plan, and the advantage has been for the insurance company, not to me. And, as the above narrative reveals, it doesn't matter what my doctor feels is best for me, my not-very-advantageous plan and the big pharma reviewers decide what is best for them and their bottom line, according to what is on one of their charts. None who make these decisions for me after my doctor's initial diagnosis and prescribed treatment have ever met me, let alone taken my vital signs.
So, when I hear these people bemoan what a horror it will be for Big Government to get between my doctor and me, I long for the days when I only had big government with Medicare (and no advantage) between me and my doctor. Now, I have the government, an insurance company and big pharma between us. Who are they kidding?
In the world in which I live-- the world in which most of us live--bureaucrats tell us every single day what we can and cannot do, what treatments we can and cannot have, what drugs we may and may not be prescribed. Within the past month, my doctor gave me samples of a drug which improved a chronic medical condition for me appreciably. She therefore prescribed it. The group from whom I get my meds-- a large pharmaceutical group that is part of a Medicare advantage plan-- told me they could not allow me to have it because they did not have it on their list for patients with my condition. I purchased a month's worth myself, out of pocket, for $101.00.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter stating. "X manages your prescription drug benefit at the request of your health plan. Certain non-preferred drugs are not covered by our plan. Your benefit plan requires that we review requests for coverage of certain non-preferred drugs…." It goes on to say that my doctor can further explain why I need this drug and that she had done so. Then they noted that my request for this "is approved." However, there is a huge BUT. "You should know that in addition to being reviewed for coverage eligibility, every prescription also undergoes a professional practice and safety review. (And now in bold print) If this review results in any concern, you might receive a quantity of medication that is less than what your doctor prescribed." (This medicine is not a narcotic, but they were treating it as though it were.)
These Nay-Sayers in Congress and pundits who talk about all the choices we have and all the non-interference we now have with our plans certainly don't have any idea what people like me experience. I have no choice in the insurance I have. (And so, for many of us, it matters not how many insurance companies there are in this country, does it?) My teacher retirement plan put all Medicare eligible retirees into a Medicare advantage plan, and the advantage has been for the insurance company, not to me. And, as the above narrative reveals, it doesn't matter what my doctor feels is best for me, my not-very-advantageous plan and the big pharma reviewers decide what is best for them and their bottom line, according to what is on one of their charts. None who make these decisions for me after my doctor's initial diagnosis and prescribed treatment have ever met me, let alone taken my vital signs.
So, when I hear these people bemoan what a horror it will be for Big Government to get between my doctor and me, I long for the days when I only had big government with Medicare (and no advantage) between me and my doctor. Now, I have the government, an insurance company and big pharma between us. Who are they kidding?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Guns, Guns Everywhere! Why Don't I Feel Safer?
I don't know about you, but I feel as though I've awakened in the middle of a real-life episode of Gunfight at the OK Corral, or worse yet, a gangster flick starring multiple Al Pacino archetypes wearing assault weapons as though they were the new bling of the new Gun Toting Fear Monger Coalition. Even now, I cannot believe what I've been seeing and hearing, and I marvel that some of these people can't even recognize the insanity of what they are saying and doing.
So many of the pistol packers express feelings of safety and security for themselves when they have a conceal-and- carry permit, when they get to cuddle their very own gun where no one else can see it. I don't know about the rest of you, but fearing that someone with a hidden gun is standing behind me, waiting in a long and slow grocery-store checkout line while they do a price check on an item I have to have makes me very nervous these days. Let's face it, people do snap from time to time.
Listening to the Second Amendment proponents justify the carrying of loaded guns, even those AR-15 assault rifles, anywhere near our president just baffles me. First of all, nearly all of these gun lovers fail to mention the initial part of the Second Amendment, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that appears to be less unequivocal than the other nine.
Amendment II reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
None of the Second Amendment proponents ever forget words like right, bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, I have yet to hear any of them even whisper the words well regulated.
Let's get my bona fides straight right now. I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon Line and live there still. All of the men in my family for generations were and are hunters. Many were champion trap and skeet shooters. Heck, I bird hunted myself until I had my third child, and in my twenties, I won a turkey at a trap shoot. So, I am not anti-gun. I no longer have my 28 gauge, but my brothers own more than one gun, and I want them to be able to keep them.
But, who needs an assault weapon? And why? How much sense does it make for anyone to suggest that it would be perfectly all right for a gymnasium full of people to be armed while listening to the president? To John Veleco, speaking for Gun Owners of America on Hardball with Chris Matthews August 19th, it is a lovely idea. He knows that gun owners are all "law-abiding citizens." How in the world does one tell the difference between a law-abiding person with a gun and a killer or a madman with a gun? (Having taught hundreds of young adults over the years, three young men-- that I know of-- were convicted of murder a few years after graduation. I can tell you that it is not always easy to spot the person most likely to kill, I don't care what anyone says.)
And those Senators and Representatives who are currently proclaiming the rights of these people who are carrying their guns into areas near the proximity of President Obama need to revisit the wording of the recent Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia Et al v. Heller 2008) that did allow handguns in D. C. and read the entire decision. After maintaining the right "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Scalia writes, in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…." He then goes on to list many of the now existing regulations on firearm ownership, sales, and use. Again people, right to bear arms comes after the term "well regulated militia." Let's not forget the well regulated part.
I have fond memories of Saturday afternoon cowboy matinees at the local theatre, but I don't enjoy it one bit when I see a bad version of the Old West alive and in living color today in the 21st century. Granted, some people are angry. That's fine. But aren't we a century plus beyond a gunfight on Main street over health care, the deficit, or TARP?
Holster you guns, cowpokes! Our Founding Fathers did not walk around armed and dangerous. They wore tights and ruffled lace blouses for Pete's sake. Leave the Old West mentality in the 1800's where it belongs, and let's try to be as enlightened as the Founding Fathers were, an enlightenment based on reason and not fire power.
So many of the pistol packers express feelings of safety and security for themselves when they have a conceal-and- carry permit, when they get to cuddle their very own gun where no one else can see it. I don't know about the rest of you, but fearing that someone with a hidden gun is standing behind me, waiting in a long and slow grocery-store checkout line while they do a price check on an item I have to have makes me very nervous these days. Let's face it, people do snap from time to time.
Listening to the Second Amendment proponents justify the carrying of loaded guns, even those AR-15 assault rifles, anywhere near our president just baffles me. First of all, nearly all of these gun lovers fail to mention the initial part of the Second Amendment, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that appears to be less unequivocal than the other nine.
Amendment II reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
None of the Second Amendment proponents ever forget words like right, bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, I have yet to hear any of them even whisper the words well regulated.
Let's get my bona fides straight right now. I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon Line and live there still. All of the men in my family for generations were and are hunters. Many were champion trap and skeet shooters. Heck, I bird hunted myself until I had my third child, and in my twenties, I won a turkey at a trap shoot. So, I am not anti-gun. I no longer have my 28 gauge, but my brothers own more than one gun, and I want them to be able to keep them.
But, who needs an assault weapon? And why? How much sense does it make for anyone to suggest that it would be perfectly all right for a gymnasium full of people to be armed while listening to the president? To John Veleco, speaking for Gun Owners of America on Hardball with Chris Matthews August 19th, it is a lovely idea. He knows that gun owners are all "law-abiding citizens." How in the world does one tell the difference between a law-abiding person with a gun and a killer or a madman with a gun? (Having taught hundreds of young adults over the years, three young men-- that I know of-- were convicted of murder a few years after graduation. I can tell you that it is not always easy to spot the person most likely to kill, I don't care what anyone says.)
And those Senators and Representatives who are currently proclaiming the rights of these people who are carrying their guns into areas near the proximity of President Obama need to revisit the wording of the recent Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia Et al v. Heller 2008) that did allow handguns in D. C. and read the entire decision. After maintaining the right "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Scalia writes, in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…." He then goes on to list many of the now existing regulations on firearm ownership, sales, and use. Again people, right to bear arms comes after the term "well regulated militia." Let's not forget the well regulated part.
I have fond memories of Saturday afternoon cowboy matinees at the local theatre, but I don't enjoy it one bit when I see a bad version of the Old West alive and in living color today in the 21st century. Granted, some people are angry. That's fine. But aren't we a century plus beyond a gunfight on Main street over health care, the deficit, or TARP?
Holster you guns, cowpokes! Our Founding Fathers did not walk around armed and dangerous. They wore tights and ruffled lace blouses for Pete's sake. Leave the Old West mentality in the 1800's where it belongs, and let's try to be as enlightened as the Founding Fathers were, an enlightenment based on reason and not fire power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
