The New Mexico stepchild of the far right-wing Cato Institute has come thundering into the discussion about the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan and related efforts to protect internet neutrality.
Predictably it's on the side of the telecoms.
Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, which is generously funded by Cato, has sent op-eds to New Mexico newspapers, including the one in my home town, resurrecting that evergreen right wing bromide: "you can't have it both ways."
You can't have environmental protection and economic growth.
You can't have regulation of big banks and a healthy stock market.
You can't have a country safe from terrorists and abide by every little jot and tittle of the Bill of Rights.
Or, as Gessing puts it, "We cannot expect companies . . .(which "companies?" Why, your altruistic friends, the telecoms. AT&T. Comcast.) . . .We cannot expect companies locked in regulatory prisons to be free-market pioneers."
"Regulatory prisons?" He's talking about the internet neutrality bill.
The FCC broadband plan wants to set goals for faster, cheaper internet service in the United States -- goals which, if met, would enable the U.S. to catch up with the rest of the world. The United States is now 15th, behind France, Sweden, Canada and a dozen other countries in broadband penetration. It ranks 19th in average download speeds. And it pays more for its slower service.
Mr. Gessing's litte piece of right-wing propaganda purports to be "all for increasing broadband usage and speed" -- sort of. The telecoms, poor souls, can't possibly make improvements if they're subject to "onerous regulation."
And what, pray, is this "onerous regulation," also known as internet neutrality? It means that internet service providers -- your pals at AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- would be prohibited from discriminating against different kinds of content and applications on line. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to reward with higher quality service, and which to deny.
This is the way the 'net operated from its very inception until 2005, when George Bush's FCC tried to rewrite the rules on behalf of the big ISPs. They want to put up tollbooths for access to the internet, deciding which web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all, and charging them a toll to deliver their data. Of course they want to be able to favor their own search engines, internet phone services and streaming video, and to slow down or block services offered by their competitors.
Now the telecoms are spending millions to lobby against restoring internet neutrality through congressional action, and Mr. Gessing is happy to oblige them.
Why, look, he says, at what wonderful things the ISPs are doing for you! "Right now, wireline broadband is avilable to 95 percent of the American population, and when you add 3G wireless, that number goes to 98 percent. Internet speeds of one megabyte per second are available through satellite providers who charge about $70 a month. All of this happened without any Big Plan from the federal government."
Er, Paul, good buddy, if I lived in Japan I'd get broadband at 30 megabytes per second! I'd get 10 Mps in Taiwan; 50 Mps in 95% of South Korea; 50 Mps in 75% of Germany; and universal coverage at speeds from four to 100 times faster than the U.S. in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the U.K.
Free market? Competition? You've got to be kidding, Paul. In the U.S., 96 percent of households have access only to two or fewer wired broadband services providers. The situation will only grow worse as demand for higher speeds grows. By 2012, only 15 percent of households will have a choice of even two providers offering world-class broadband service.
As Gessing himself acknowledges, it can cost you up to $70 a month in the U.S. to get one megabyte per second service. To get a world-class 50 Mps, you'll pay about $145 per month. The same 50 Mps costs $28 per month in South Korea. In the U .K. it's even cheaper: $26 per month for 50 Mps.
And nobody's manning toll booths over there to decide who gets to ride on the internet, or what fee they'll pay.
"Don't tell Momma I'm a journalist; say I play the piano in a whorehouse."
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Trolling for Baloneyfish in American Waters
Ah, Spring! A cloudless, sunbright day: a perfect day for baloneyfish.
They're easy to catch. Just cast a line into the waters of the American press, national or local.
See here, I've got a strike already. Big one, from the Wall Street Journal, whose waters usually teem with baloney fish. This is from a guy who used to be, under Dubyuh, "deputy assistant secretary of defense for combatting weapons of mass destruction." I am not making this up. That's what Jack David was. Now he's with the Hudson Institute and his baloneyfish surfaced in today's WSJ under the headline: "The dangerous fantasy of a nuclear-free world." He says nuclear zero is simply impossible in "the world as it exists."
I'm looking forward to subsequent articles about "dangerous fantasies," such as, say, a cancer-free world, a pollution-free world, a bunion-free world. Think about this. Imagine a world without bunions. What would Dr. Scholl do for a living? How would we survive without gelled toe spacers? Metatarsal surgeons would be lined up outside McDonald's begging for jobs flipping burgers -- and, frankly, who would want to eat a Big Mac flipped by a metatarsal surgeon?
The waters of my local rag are rich with baloneyfish, too. Here's one I caught in today's paper: "Obamacare and his other fiscal posturing shall plunge us into the black pit of financial GNP turbulence. This portends the end of our society, as we know it, and a moaning of our forefathers and our children's children."
Got that? A moaning of our forefathers and our children's children. Is that worse than the black pit of financial GNP turbulence? What makes that pit black? The turbulence? The GNP? And what sort of depravity induces one to engage in fiscal posturing? Whatever, it sounds grave.
But the baloneyfish Catch of the Day, as most often happens, came from the Wall Street Journal op-eds. Our old wingnut pal, Norman Podhoretz, jumping into the deepest end he could find, wrote:
"I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama."
Baloneyfish, as is well-known, are very ordinary-looking. But when they swim into a hole, they excrete so much baloney that they die of baloney fever.
Just a word to the wise, Norman.
They're easy to catch. Just cast a line into the waters of the American press, national or local.
See here, I've got a strike already. Big one, from the Wall Street Journal, whose waters usually teem with baloney fish. This is from a guy who used to be, under Dubyuh, "deputy assistant secretary of defense for combatting weapons of mass destruction." I am not making this up. That's what Jack David was. Now he's with the Hudson Institute and his baloneyfish surfaced in today's WSJ under the headline: "The dangerous fantasy of a nuclear-free world." He says nuclear zero is simply impossible in "the world as it exists."
I'm looking forward to subsequent articles about "dangerous fantasies," such as, say, a cancer-free world, a pollution-free world, a bunion-free world. Think about this. Imagine a world without bunions. What would Dr. Scholl do for a living? How would we survive without gelled toe spacers? Metatarsal surgeons would be lined up outside McDonald's begging for jobs flipping burgers -- and, frankly, who would want to eat a Big Mac flipped by a metatarsal surgeon?
The waters of my local rag are rich with baloneyfish, too. Here's one I caught in today's paper: "Obamacare and his other fiscal posturing shall plunge us into the black pit of financial GNP turbulence. This portends the end of our society, as we know it, and a moaning of our forefathers and our children's children."
Got that? A moaning of our forefathers and our children's children. Is that worse than the black pit of financial GNP turbulence? What makes that pit black? The turbulence? The GNP? And what sort of depravity induces one to engage in fiscal posturing? Whatever, it sounds grave.
But the baloneyfish Catch of the Day, as most often happens, came from the Wall Street Journal op-eds. Our old wingnut pal, Norman Podhoretz, jumping into the deepest end he could find, wrote:
"I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama."
Baloneyfish, as is well-known, are very ordinary-looking. But when they swim into a hole, they excrete so much baloney that they die of baloney fever.
Just a word to the wise, Norman.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Noonan to Democrats: Drop Dead!
Is there any commodity in the United States more abundant than Republican cheek? Today, for example, Peggy Noonan sent out a call for -- get this! -- bipartisanship to curb violent political reactions. She used that very word: "bipartisanship."
As the great Art Buchwald used to say, "You couldn't make this stuff up." The recent violence over the passage of legislation to assure Americans of adequate health care, according to Ms. Noonan, is "bipartisan," and so must be the solution. Democrats! Stop making your office windows so inviting to brick tossers. Stop walking in range of Republican gunsights. Stop voting for things we don't like. That oughtta clear up the violence thing.
Times change.
I remember when my Dad put up the only Willkie for President sign on either side of the entire length of Herbert Avenue. Hardly an eyebrow was raised by the FDR majority. Kids on the baseball lot still let me use "chicken claws" just as they could. The other Moms still exchanged gossip, recipes and home-grown vegetables (it was wartime, after all) with my Mom. Pops Hemberger, who lived across the street, did chuckle once about how he and the other pinochle players "liked to get Doc talking politics, because then he didn't pay too good of attention to his cards, and we could maybe win a little bit more."
These days, you're risking your life if you support the first improvement in our national health care system since Medicare. People bring guns to political rallies. A wrongful bumper sticker could make you a victim of road rage. My wife once sent out a neighborhood mailing on political issues: just issues, no names of candidates, no mention of parties. She received three civil replies by mail, disagreeing with her arguments and questioning her tactic. She received four threats of violence -- all anonymous. If she did the same thing today we'd have to hire Wackenhuts.
If you're the type who likes an occasional friendly wager, here's a good one: next time you take a road trip with a Republican, bet that every pickup truck you spot with a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper sticker will also have a pro-Republican issue or candidate sticker. You'll win big. Guns are central to the violent Republican crowd. Pistol-packin' Mommas, if you read a recent poll, comprise more than half the Tea Party membership.
In her plea for -- honest! she wrote this! in today's Wall Street Journal! -- bipartisanship, Ms. Noonan warned us that these are dangerous times. But then, she said, politics in the United States has always been a rough game.
As that great American, Joe McCarthy once said, "If you've got a guy down, kick him in the groin."
As the great Art Buchwald used to say, "You couldn't make this stuff up." The recent violence over the passage of legislation to assure Americans of adequate health care, according to Ms. Noonan, is "bipartisan," and so must be the solution. Democrats! Stop making your office windows so inviting to brick tossers. Stop walking in range of Republican gunsights. Stop voting for things we don't like. That oughtta clear up the violence thing.
Times change.
I remember when my Dad put up the only Willkie for President sign on either side of the entire length of Herbert Avenue. Hardly an eyebrow was raised by the FDR majority. Kids on the baseball lot still let me use "chicken claws" just as they could. The other Moms still exchanged gossip, recipes and home-grown vegetables (it was wartime, after all) with my Mom. Pops Hemberger, who lived across the street, did chuckle once about how he and the other pinochle players "liked to get Doc talking politics, because then he didn't pay too good of attention to his cards, and we could maybe win a little bit more."
These days, you're risking your life if you support the first improvement in our national health care system since Medicare. People bring guns to political rallies. A wrongful bumper sticker could make you a victim of road rage. My wife once sent out a neighborhood mailing on political issues: just issues, no names of candidates, no mention of parties. She received three civil replies by mail, disagreeing with her arguments and questioning her tactic. She received four threats of violence -- all anonymous. If she did the same thing today we'd have to hire Wackenhuts.
If you're the type who likes an occasional friendly wager, here's a good one: next time you take a road trip with a Republican, bet that every pickup truck you spot with a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper sticker will also have a pro-Republican issue or candidate sticker. You'll win big. Guns are central to the violent Republican crowd. Pistol-packin' Mommas, if you read a recent poll, comprise more than half the Tea Party membership.
In her plea for -- honest! she wrote this! in today's Wall Street Journal! -- bipartisanship, Ms. Noonan warned us that these are dangerous times. But then, she said, politics in the United States has always been a rough game.
As that great American, Joe McCarthy once said, "If you've got a guy down, kick him in the groin."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Life, Art and Catch 22: Brethren, Let Us Hate
Life, we're often told, imitates art.
Lt. Milo Minderbinder, Joseph Heller's villainous parody of capitalism in "Catch 22," has transmogrified into today's real-life Republican Party.
In the novel, when Yossarian and a young crewman in the back of the plane desperately need morphine, it turns out that Milo has snatched all of the morphine in the medical kits and sold it. Think of Yossarian and the kid in the back of the plane as 40 million Americans without health care, 40,000 of whom die every year of treatable ailments. Think of the Catch 22 morphine as the health care bill for which not a single Republican voted. Or take war itself: Minderbinder strikes a deal with the Germans to bomb his own squadron, but ultimately is forgiven because . . . the doublecross turned a healthy profit. Now we are engaged in endless war because . . . it turns an enormous profit.
Not even Heller would have thought, however, of a Supreme Court granting personhood to Milo's criminal M & M syndicate.
But Milo was a callous, amoral product of the Engine Charlie Wilson school of thought: What's good for General Motors is good for the country. He wasn't a hater. Hence he was able to strike deals with the Germans and his own side and profit both ways.
Look at the most avid followers of today's Republican party and the Catch 22 parallel no longer applies. True, they prattle a great deal about "American free enterprise," the real life version of Minderbinder's syndicate. But what really motivates them is hatred.
Remember the disruptions of the town hall meetings during the Congressional recess? Those people weren't merely angry; they seethed with hatred. Go back further. Remember the Palin rallies in the 2008 election? Hatred. Fast forward to today. Congress passed a health care bill despite a Republican campaign of lies, distortions and . . . yes, hatred. And Republicans responded by throwing bricks through the office windows of members of Congress in their home districts, criminally cutting off utilities to their homes, and shouting "nigger" and"faggot" and "babykiller" at elected officials trying to do the jobs they were sent to Washington to do. They're even threatening to kill those who supported the bill.
Barack Obama's election, despite the pipe dreams of the optimists, did not herald a new post-racial era in America. Rather it brought to the surface the long simmering racial hatreds that millions of Americans still harbor.
And yet the hatred that motivates millions of Americans is not merely racial. These citizens of the United States thrive on hatred of "other." Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are "other." Barack Obama is "other;" whence, for example, the so-called "birther movement." Non-Christians, non-theists, or Christians who believe that women have the right to control their own bodies, including the termination of unwanted pregnancies, are "other." Otherness fuels a hatred so blind that doctors whose humanitarian instincts impel them to provide needed services to such women are considered fair game for murderers. They're not killers; they're saving "unborn children." If Muslim civilians, women and children are killed by our drones, don't bother counting them as victims. They're just . . ."other." In these United States, otherness embraces the espousal of progressive or liberal views of the Constitution, civil liberties, human rights and ethical behavior. And only in America have the haters managed to make the terms "liberal" and "progressive" into derogations. Indeed, hatred has captured and turned upside down entire sections of the American vocabulary. Once perfectly honorable words like "patriot" have been made into code for the actions, attitudes and objects of hate. They are "pro-life" but they would kill doctors and congressmen who don't agree with their extreme beliefs.
Only Joseph Heller knows for sure, but I suspect that even Milo Minderbinder might be appalled by some of this.
Lt. Milo Minderbinder, Joseph Heller's villainous parody of capitalism in "Catch 22," has transmogrified into today's real-life Republican Party.
In the novel, when Yossarian and a young crewman in the back of the plane desperately need morphine, it turns out that Milo has snatched all of the morphine in the medical kits and sold it. Think of Yossarian and the kid in the back of the plane as 40 million Americans without health care, 40,000 of whom die every year of treatable ailments. Think of the Catch 22 morphine as the health care bill for which not a single Republican voted. Or take war itself: Minderbinder strikes a deal with the Germans to bomb his own squadron, but ultimately is forgiven because . . . the doublecross turned a healthy profit. Now we are engaged in endless war because . . . it turns an enormous profit.
Not even Heller would have thought, however, of a Supreme Court granting personhood to Milo's criminal M & M syndicate.
But Milo was a callous, amoral product of the Engine Charlie Wilson school of thought: What's good for General Motors is good for the country. He wasn't a hater. Hence he was able to strike deals with the Germans and his own side and profit both ways.
Look at the most avid followers of today's Republican party and the Catch 22 parallel no longer applies. True, they prattle a great deal about "American free enterprise," the real life version of Minderbinder's syndicate. But what really motivates them is hatred.
Remember the disruptions of the town hall meetings during the Congressional recess? Those people weren't merely angry; they seethed with hatred. Go back further. Remember the Palin rallies in the 2008 election? Hatred. Fast forward to today. Congress passed a health care bill despite a Republican campaign of lies, distortions and . . . yes, hatred. And Republicans responded by throwing bricks through the office windows of members of Congress in their home districts, criminally cutting off utilities to their homes, and shouting "nigger" and"faggot" and "babykiller" at elected officials trying to do the jobs they were sent to Washington to do. They're even threatening to kill those who supported the bill.
Barack Obama's election, despite the pipe dreams of the optimists, did not herald a new post-racial era in America. Rather it brought to the surface the long simmering racial hatreds that millions of Americans still harbor.
And yet the hatred that motivates millions of Americans is not merely racial. These citizens of the United States thrive on hatred of "other." Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are "other." Barack Obama is "other;" whence, for example, the so-called "birther movement." Non-Christians, non-theists, or Christians who believe that women have the right to control their own bodies, including the termination of unwanted pregnancies, are "other." Otherness fuels a hatred so blind that doctors whose humanitarian instincts impel them to provide needed services to such women are considered fair game for murderers. They're not killers; they're saving "unborn children." If Muslim civilians, women and children are killed by our drones, don't bother counting them as victims. They're just . . ."other." In these United States, otherness embraces the espousal of progressive or liberal views of the Constitution, civil liberties, human rights and ethical behavior. And only in America have the haters managed to make the terms "liberal" and "progressive" into derogations. Indeed, hatred has captured and turned upside down entire sections of the American vocabulary. Once perfectly honorable words like "patriot" have been made into code for the actions, attitudes and objects of hate. They are "pro-life" but they would kill doctors and congressmen who don't agree with their extreme beliefs.
Only Joseph Heller knows for sure, but I suspect that even Milo Minderbinder might be appalled by some of this.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Last Word on Health Care, from a Great American
By: Dennis Kucinich
(As told to Mark Warren, Sunday, March 21, 2010. From Esquire.com - March 22, 2010, 2:35 pm)
The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a "no" vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.
When I arrived home that evening - March 4 - I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill. And it was very clear to me that there was a lot on the line here - that he didn't say. I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something, even if I don't agree with him. I told my wife, "You know I kinda feel bad about the situation he's in here. This is really a tough situation - his presidency is on the line." And I had a sense of sadness about what I saw him grappling with. I still maintained my position, still went forward in debates, arguing in meetings, arguing against the bill because it didn't have a public option, didn't have an opening for the states to pursue single-payer in a free manner. But at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation.
Now keep something in mind about my relationship with President Obama: He and I campaigned together. A meeting with the president is always important - he and I have met dozens of times, during the campaign and since he became president - but we've met on many occasions. Four or five times about health care. So the relationship I have with him is a little bit different than other members who weren't on the campaign trail with him and who hadn't developed a relationship with him apart from the relationship that members of Congress ordinarily have with the president.
So I was really looking at Barack Obama the man, and thinking about his presidency. I've had differences of opinion with him on a number of issues. But I understand how this is a pivotal moment in America, and in his presidency. It's also a pivotal moment in American history. Of course, I carried that awareness with me into the next meeting, which took place on Air Force One on the fifteenth of March. Last Monday. So much has happened in just one week, but during that time, there had been a lot of speculation. I had done many interviews attacking the bill for its well-publicized shortcomings and I was not relenting. After we met on Air Force One, I didn't tell the president that "Look, I'm changing my position - you got me." We didn't have that discussion.
My decision came last Tuesday morning. There's a place where I go in the Capitol, just to kind of reflect - before I have to make very important decisions. It's in the rotunda - right next to Lincoln's statue. It's just a bench. And I went over there early Tuesday morning, about seven in the morning when the sun was just coming up, and no one else was around - there wasn't a sound in the Capitol at that moment in the morning. And I just sat down there in a quiet place and thought about this decision. And that's literally where I made up my mind that, notwithstanding how much there was in the bill that I didn't like, that I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency, to step forward and say, "We must pass this bill. And we must use this bill as an opening toward a renewed effort for a more comprehensive approach to health care reform."
The Speaker and I also had many discussions about the bill. And I talked to her briefly on Monday night and told her that I was giving some thought to the appeals that she had made to me. And she said, "Oh, Dennis, you know, I just hope that you'll be with us on this. This is so important." And I said, "Well I'm giving some thought to what your concerns have been, Madame Speaker." And on Monday night, I talked to my wife, Elizabeth - at home, it was late.
Elizabeth asked how the day went. And I told her. I said, "You know I'm giving this a lot of thought." I asked, "What would you think if I decided to support this?" And she said, "Look, I'll support - whatever decision you make, I'll stand behind you." And it was important for me to talk to her because, you know, spouses live with the decisions that members of Congress make. I mean, I have had occasion to ask Elizabeth's opinion, and if she feels very strongly about something, I'm open to being persuaded. That's just what happens when you have a partnership. So I asked what she thought, and then I got up in the morning and headed right over to the Capitol just to meditate on all the discussions that I'd had - with the president, with Speaker Pelosi, with my wife, and with my constituents.
And then after being in the rotunda for about fifteen minutes, I left and went over to my office. That afternoon, I had a meeting with my staff, and I told them that I was going to come out in favor of the bill. But I had no discussions with anyone. And I did not notify the White House - the White House found out about it when I announced it from the press gallery. Because I just felt that this had to be a decision that I made on my own, without any coaxing one way or another. I wanted even people in the White House to know that this decision came ultimately from my own willingness to pay careful attention to the concerns that the president, the Speaker, and others had expressed to me.
This was a particularly hard decision because the private insurance model is something that I don't support. As I've said before, I don't take back any of the criticisms I've made of the bill. This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory - it makes money for not providing health care. Now, the reforms in this bill may provide some relief from that impulse. But, nevertheless, I have my work cut out for me now in continuing the effort toward a much broader approach to health care reform, which would include attention to diet, nutrition, complementary alternative medicine, and empowering states to move forward with single-payer.
When it comes to analyzing the law we've just passed, it's hard to use terms like good or bad. Because ultimately what was decisive for me was not the bill, but rather the potential to create an opening for a more comprehensive approach toward health care reform. If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill - the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted - all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.
Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that.
Someone in the media said that I was prepared to be the Ralph Nader of health care reform. If by the Ralph Nader of health care reform someone means someone who holds crooked corporations accountable, then that's a compliment. If they were referring to the 2000 presidential race, I think those who were closest in the Gore campaign realize that that campaign was death by a thousand cuts. And to try to put it all on Ralph Nader is, you know, historically glib.
But the synthesis of that argument was this: People were telling me, "Dennis, you are helping to gather momentum in the direction toward the defeat of the bill." That's what people were telling me. That's what the message was. And: "Is this something you really want to do?" And of course I have to consider, when the vote is close, and however the final tally turns, but whether the bill passes by one vote or five votes or more, the question of momentum was something everyone was concerned about at that point. And people were concerned that if I continued to maintain my position of hammering away at the defects of the bill that I may cause its defeat. That's a legitimate criticism. It's something that I had to take into account in terms of my personal responsibility for the position that I held, and the impact that it would have on my constituents. We always have to be open to people who may hold a view that may be different than yours. Because you might learn something.
And so as we came closer, and it appeared that I would be in a pivotal position, I realized that the moment required me to look at this in the broadest terms possible. To look at this in terms of the long-term impact on my constituents, of the moment in history in which we now stand, of the impact on the country, of the impact on the Obama presidency, on the impact on the president personally. I had to think about all of this. I couldn't just say, "Well here's my position: I'm for single-payer, and this isn't single-payer, so I'm going to defeat the bill."
Last year, seventy-seven members of Congress agreed that if the bill didn't have a public option, they were going to vote against it. And there were only two members who had kept that pledge when it was voted on the first time in the House. And I was one of them. And the other one's no longer in Congress. So I basically was the last man standing here. So I'm aware of the debate that took place in favor of the bill. My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism - or capitalism.
Those claims are just part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock - so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus - the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.
But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now.
And so I think that the pivot here could be toward a very exciting time where the Obama presidency gets a chance to hit the reset button. This is my hope, at least.
All of this went through my mind as I sat in the quiet Capitol rotunda last Tuesday morning. I thought about what could happen if I was willing to show some flexibility, and to compromise for the sake of a broader progress. That was all part of my thinking as I got the point where I stepped to the podium in the Capitol to announce my decision. And right after I finished what I had to say and left the room, the president called. I understood the importance of the call, and he understood the importance of the decision that I made. There was gravity in the moment. There is a lot at stake here.
I took it all into account - everything that I hoped would happen if this were to pass, everything that I hope will happen. And if those things come to pass because of the small role I may have played in switching the momentum, then my service in Congress has been worth it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Jabberwock Bill: The End of Ugly?
At last, my fellow Americans, we have . . . something. Something called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House last night and will be signed into law by the President, probably on Tuesday.
I am not throwing confetti or tossing around the term "historic." I concede that Obama-Pelosi is the first president-speaker team ever to enact any legislation to change the entire American health care system.
Whether these changes will be for better or for worse remains to be seen.
I applaud the passage of the bill in the hope that it will bring, sooner rather than later, an end to a magna cum ugly period of our national history.
The citizenry has endured:
+ Republican sophistry, hate-talk, racism, lies, deception, expletives, middle-fingering and hypocrisy in opposition to any effort to improve the health care system, ignoring the thousands of American deaths each year from treatable ailments for which the victims couldn't afford care. This is somewhat equivalent to (but worse than) not just rooting against Tiny Tim, but hoping he'll break his crutch and die already.
+Misleading statements, back-room deals, sell-outs and double-talk by the president, congresspeople and senators we elected with a mandate for quality health care for everyone. This ideally would mean, as Obama himself acknowledged, a single-payer, government-run plan like Medicare for all. He didn't even suggest it, however. Instead he publicly appeared to favor a paliative called public option while in secret promising the health insurance industry that it would be struck from the final bill. Even before work on the bill had begun in Congress, he sold out to the insurance industry, promising to eliminate any provisions that would protect consumers just a little bit from price-gouging. Finally, for all the starry-eyed women who swooned over his oratory and gave him their vote, he bargained away their right to total gynecological health care.
+ Utter exclusion from the process of those elected representatives of the people like Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold who actually believed that affordable health care for all meant . . . affordable health care for all! Ultimately even they fell in line behind the . . . something . . that finally passed. Only they know why.
So here's to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Oh frabjous day, calloo callay!
I fear we're screwed in every way.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
With jaws that snatch and cries that ring,
For oft it comes disguised as . . . something.
Whose Soiree Now?
Assume that the government estimate of 32 million presently uninsured citizens buy health care insurance as required under the new law. Assume that the premiums they are charged will be roughly comparable to the premiums now paid by Medicare beneficiaries (regardless of what portion is paid by the consumer or by the government). Then, the additional income for health care insurers will be approximately $5.76 trillion per year.
And so:
NEW YORK (AP) - Health stocks lifted the market Monday following House approval of the bill that would extend insurance to millions.
The Dow-Jones Industrial Average rose about 45 points in afternoon trading. Broader indexes also climbed.
Investors had expected the health care bill would pass the House, but the approval late Sunday removed uncertainty about the rules that would govern the industry. A companion bill now goes back to the Senate. The changes could have far-reaching effects on health companies.
Hospital operators Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Health Management Associates Inc. each rose more than 8 percent.
Ugly's Last Stand?
And so in Arizona and New York and Ohio and perhaps elsewhere, rocks were thrown through the windows of Democrats congressional offices apparently at the behest of an overweight troglodyte in Alabama.
Republican state attorneys general are filing suit to have the health care bill declared unconstitutional, and the Roberts Supreme Court is salivating blood in eager anticipation of doing just that.
Somewhere someone in a tea party T shirt is kicking Tiny Tim's crutch out from under him and clubbing him to death like a baby seal with it.
Ugly dies hard in these United States.
I am not throwing confetti or tossing around the term "historic." I concede that Obama-Pelosi is the first president-speaker team ever to enact any legislation to change the entire American health care system.
Whether these changes will be for better or for worse remains to be seen.
I applaud the passage of the bill in the hope that it will bring, sooner rather than later, an end to a magna cum ugly period of our national history.
The citizenry has endured:
+ Republican sophistry, hate-talk, racism, lies, deception, expletives, middle-fingering and hypocrisy in opposition to any effort to improve the health care system, ignoring the thousands of American deaths each year from treatable ailments for which the victims couldn't afford care. This is somewhat equivalent to (but worse than) not just rooting against Tiny Tim, but hoping he'll break his crutch and die already.
+Misleading statements, back-room deals, sell-outs and double-talk by the president, congresspeople and senators we elected with a mandate for quality health care for everyone. This ideally would mean, as Obama himself acknowledged, a single-payer, government-run plan like Medicare for all. He didn't even suggest it, however. Instead he publicly appeared to favor a paliative called public option while in secret promising the health insurance industry that it would be struck from the final bill. Even before work on the bill had begun in Congress, he sold out to the insurance industry, promising to eliminate any provisions that would protect consumers just a little bit from price-gouging. Finally, for all the starry-eyed women who swooned over his oratory and gave him their vote, he bargained away their right to total gynecological health care.
+ Utter exclusion from the process of those elected representatives of the people like Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold who actually believed that affordable health care for all meant . . . affordable health care for all! Ultimately even they fell in line behind the . . . something . . that finally passed. Only they know why.
So here's to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Oh frabjous day, calloo callay!
I fear we're screwed in every way.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
With jaws that snatch and cries that ring,
For oft it comes disguised as . . . something.
Whose Soiree Now?
Assume that the government estimate of 32 million presently uninsured citizens buy health care insurance as required under the new law. Assume that the premiums they are charged will be roughly comparable to the premiums now paid by Medicare beneficiaries (regardless of what portion is paid by the consumer or by the government). Then, the additional income for health care insurers will be approximately $5.76 trillion per year.
And so:
NEW YORK (AP) - Health stocks lifted the market Monday following House approval of the bill that would extend insurance to millions.
The Dow-Jones Industrial Average rose about 45 points in afternoon trading. Broader indexes also climbed.
Investors had expected the health care bill would pass the House, but the approval late Sunday removed uncertainty about the rules that would govern the industry. A companion bill now goes back to the Senate. The changes could have far-reaching effects on health companies.
Hospital operators Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Health Management Associates Inc. each rose more than 8 percent.
Ugly's Last Stand?
And so in Arizona and New York and Ohio and perhaps elsewhere, rocks were thrown through the windows of Democrats congressional offices apparently at the behest of an overweight troglodyte in Alabama.
Republican state attorneys general are filing suit to have the health care bill declared unconstitutional, and the Roberts Supreme Court is salivating blood in eager anticipation of doing just that.
Somewhere someone in a tea party T shirt is kicking Tiny Tim's crutch out from under him and clubbing him to death like a baby seal with it.
Ugly dies hard in these United States.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Who Do We Turn to When You Turn Away, Dennis?
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during those four -- count 'em, four -- arm-twisting sessions President Obama had with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Whatever transpired, it must have been galling today for Kucinich to stand before the microphones and surrender his demand for true health care reform, with Medicare for all or some other strong public option to mitigate the greed of the insurance companies.
Kucinich said Wednesday that the bill coming before the House represents the best chance to expand coverage to the uninsured, even if it does not include a public plan. "You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate," said Kucinich.
Destroyed by this debate? Obama's presidency was destroyed when he put the Wall Street foxes in charge of guarding the nation's crumbling financial hen-house. It was destroyed when he expanded rather than ended Bush's unjustifiable wars. It was destroyed when he turned his back on millions of jobless Americans. It was destroyed when he refused to investigate the war crimes, treason and high misdemeanors of the highest-ranking members of the administration he succeeded. It was destroyed when he continued the very spying on Americans, the very unconstitutional executive secrecy, and the very policies of torture he was elected to end. It was destroyed when he arbitrarily took single-payer off the health care bargaining table before bargaining had even begun. It was destroyed when he sold his soul and allowed the drug industry to write half of the health care legislation. It was destroyed before Dennis Kucinich had four meetings with him in and above Ohio earlier this week.
Today the Congressman said: "Even though I have many differences with (Obama) on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
What could be bigger than affordable health care for all Americans? What could be bigger than working for peace rather than extending war? What could be bigger than restoring the entire Bill of Rights for all Americans? What could be bigger than putting 12 million jobless Americans back to work? What could be bigger than ending the human practices that are destroying the entire biosphere of our planet? Why is it so important to let politics overrule conscience in a vain effort to save a failed presidency?
For his entire political life, Kucinich has bravely stood alone against political tides, powerful special interests and mass hysteria among the electorate. What arguments, even from a President, could have broken his will? What threats could have turned him?
He wasn't waterboarded. But then, there are other, more subtle forms of torture, aren't there?
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall.
Whatever transpired, it must have been galling today for Kucinich to stand before the microphones and surrender his demand for true health care reform, with Medicare for all or some other strong public option to mitigate the greed of the insurance companies.
Kucinich said Wednesday that the bill coming before the House represents the best chance to expand coverage to the uninsured, even if it does not include a public plan. "You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate," said Kucinich.
Destroyed by this debate? Obama's presidency was destroyed when he put the Wall Street foxes in charge of guarding the nation's crumbling financial hen-house. It was destroyed when he expanded rather than ended Bush's unjustifiable wars. It was destroyed when he turned his back on millions of jobless Americans. It was destroyed when he refused to investigate the war crimes, treason and high misdemeanors of the highest-ranking members of the administration he succeeded. It was destroyed when he continued the very spying on Americans, the very unconstitutional executive secrecy, and the very policies of torture he was elected to end. It was destroyed when he arbitrarily took single-payer off the health care bargaining table before bargaining had even begun. It was destroyed when he sold his soul and allowed the drug industry to write half of the health care legislation. It was destroyed before Dennis Kucinich had four meetings with him in and above Ohio earlier this week.
Today the Congressman said: "Even though I have many differences with (Obama) on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
What could be bigger than affordable health care for all Americans? What could be bigger than working for peace rather than extending war? What could be bigger than restoring the entire Bill of Rights for all Americans? What could be bigger than putting 12 million jobless Americans back to work? What could be bigger than ending the human practices that are destroying the entire biosphere of our planet? Why is it so important to let politics overrule conscience in a vain effort to save a failed presidency?
For his entire political life, Kucinich has bravely stood alone against political tides, powerful special interests and mass hysteria among the electorate. What arguments, even from a President, could have broken his will? What threats could have turned him?
He wasn't waterboarded. But then, there are other, more subtle forms of torture, aren't there?
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Great American Novels to Come!
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? -- Robert. F. Kennedy.
* * *
Come, brethren, let us dream together. Let us put lipstick on this pig that is public education in Texas and call it Pegasus. Let us enroll in the new Texas home economics class and learn to make chicken salad out of chicken excrement. Let us see the good that might come of the new policies of that bastion of reason and acuity, the Texas Board of Education.
Mark ye this and mark it well: From plains of ignorance, borne on winds of folly, breathing the fire of an angry God and seething at at the sins of those who would separate religion from governance, the next generation of major American fiction writers will emerge. They will give us not just one Great American Novel but an entire series of them.
Why not?
How better to create a great generation of fiction writers than to require children to write fiction in school? Not just in English class; in every class! Sociology. American history. Civics and government. Science.
In American history, Texas children will be required to write essays about "great Americans" like Newt Gingrich and William F. Buckley Jr. ("When Newt Gingrich decided to ditch the bitch to marry his doxie, he broke the news gently because his wife was dying of cancer. This sort of compassion is not unusual among great Americans because it is, well, the American Way. . . . .")
Our science fiction literature can only be deeply enriched by a generation whose science textbooks contain no mention of Thomas Alva Edison or Albert Einstein; whose classes on meteorology teach that a hurricane devastated New Orleans because of Madalyn Murray O'Hair's atheism, and an earthquake devastated Haiti because someone made "a pact with the devil."
What wondrous fiction might we expect from a generation schooled to believe that the Moral Majority -- led by the likes of Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker -- enriched our national ethic by joining with that other great American, Phyllis Schlafly, to "create the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."
Thomas Jefferson has no place in the historical novels to come because he was a Deist who did not accept Christ as "divine," and he held that our Constitution erects a "wall of separation between church and state."
What fine fairy tales we might expect from grown-up children who learned that not only did Joshua cause walls to tumble down simply by blowing a horn, but also that Ronald Reagan did so simply by blowing smoke.
This will be happy fiction. There will be no Trail of Tears in these great American novels; no tragedy at Wounded Knee; no massacre at Little Big Horn; no cutting off of Puebloans' feet. These events did not happen in the history books of Texas. The new wave of great American fiction will deal with the American Indian only as an obstruction to progress, to Great White American Achievements like Las Vegas, Lake Powell, Phoenix, Palm Springs, and, most especially, Dallas, Houston and Waco.
Our new American novelists will know a great deal about Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Association, but absolutely nothing about Cesar Estrada Chavez and the United Farm Workers. They will write their fiction from a firm foundation of Glenn Beck, the "Contract with America" and the Heritage Foundation. But they won't have the foggiest idea of the contributions to our culture and history by Anatonia Novella, Mel Martinez, Antonio Villaraigosa, Bill Richardson, Anthony Romero, Jorge Perez, Jose Gomez, Mari Carmen Ramirez, Sonia Sotomayor, Edwin M. Figueroa, Jose Marti, or Mari Carmen Ramirez.
But let us rejoice in what could be! Even if you don't read the books, you'll be able to watch the movies.
* * *
Come, brethren, let us dream together. Let us put lipstick on this pig that is public education in Texas and call it Pegasus. Let us enroll in the new Texas home economics class and learn to make chicken salad out of chicken excrement. Let us see the good that might come of the new policies of that bastion of reason and acuity, the Texas Board of Education.
Mark ye this and mark it well: From plains of ignorance, borne on winds of folly, breathing the fire of an angry God and seething at at the sins of those who would separate religion from governance, the next generation of major American fiction writers will emerge. They will give us not just one Great American Novel but an entire series of them.
Why not?
How better to create a great generation of fiction writers than to require children to write fiction in school? Not just in English class; in every class! Sociology. American history. Civics and government. Science.
In American history, Texas children will be required to write essays about "great Americans" like Newt Gingrich and William F. Buckley Jr. ("When Newt Gingrich decided to ditch the bitch to marry his doxie, he broke the news gently because his wife was dying of cancer. This sort of compassion is not unusual among great Americans because it is, well, the American Way. . . . .")
Our science fiction literature can only be deeply enriched by a generation whose science textbooks contain no mention of Thomas Alva Edison or Albert Einstein; whose classes on meteorology teach that a hurricane devastated New Orleans because of Madalyn Murray O'Hair's atheism, and an earthquake devastated Haiti because someone made "a pact with the devil."
What wondrous fiction might we expect from a generation schooled to believe that the Moral Majority -- led by the likes of Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker -- enriched our national ethic by joining with that other great American, Phyllis Schlafly, to "create the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."
Thomas Jefferson has no place in the historical novels to come because he was a Deist who did not accept Christ as "divine," and he held that our Constitution erects a "wall of separation between church and state."
What fine fairy tales we might expect from grown-up children who learned that not only did Joshua cause walls to tumble down simply by blowing a horn, but also that Ronald Reagan did so simply by blowing smoke.
This will be happy fiction. There will be no Trail of Tears in these great American novels; no tragedy at Wounded Knee; no massacre at Little Big Horn; no cutting off of Puebloans' feet. These events did not happen in the history books of Texas. The new wave of great American fiction will deal with the American Indian only as an obstruction to progress, to Great White American Achievements like Las Vegas, Lake Powell, Phoenix, Palm Springs, and, most especially, Dallas, Houston and Waco.
Our new American novelists will know a great deal about Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Association, but absolutely nothing about Cesar Estrada Chavez and the United Farm Workers. They will write their fiction from a firm foundation of Glenn Beck, the "Contract with America" and the Heritage Foundation. But they won't have the foggiest idea of the contributions to our culture and history by Anatonia Novella, Mel Martinez, Antonio Villaraigosa, Bill Richardson, Anthony Romero, Jorge Perez, Jose Gomez, Mari Carmen Ramirez, Sonia Sotomayor, Edwin M. Figueroa, Jose Marti, or Mari Carmen Ramirez.
But let us rejoice in what could be! Even if you don't read the books, you'll be able to watch the movies.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Brother Against Brother to the Very End
Coming out of the coffee shop this morning, we were approached by an earnest young lady urging us to attend a "final march" for health care reform this coming Sunday.
Let the bloodletting begin. Not, unfortunately, between proponents of improved health care for all Americans and their opponents, who have yet to find a lie too onerous to use against it. No. Bloodletting among ourselves.
"I cannot bring myself to rally for the Senate bill to pass the House," I said. "It's the best we can get," said Lois, "and if it doesn't pass, the Democrats are dead meat for a long time to come."
"It's not the best we can get," I replied. "It's the best the insurance companies can get. Big difference."
And so it went.
Paul Krugman tells us it's not perfect, but it is responsible and should pass. He deflates three of the current most-repeated lies about the legislation. "Government control of one-sixth of the economy," is the hot one, and Krugman wastes little time exposing its falsehood. But he doesn't dwell on the main point:
Without a strong public option, the insurance companies are free to put consumers in an impossible vise: they will be required to buy insurance, but there is no restraint on the premiums the insurers can charge.
This is the heart of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's continuing opposition to the legislation as it stands. All 77 members of the Progressive Caucus signed a pledge not to vote for a health care bill without a public option; Kucinich is the only one who has not reneged.
"We need to keep the discussion going about alternatives," he told the progressive blogger Rob Kall, "because every discussion about alternatives puts the pressure in the direction of trying to come up with a better bill. And even at this late date, it would be a huge mistake to just look at the bill and call it a day. No, no no. We have to fight for the best bill we can get all the way down the line and if despite our best efforts, it still can not meet the test of providing care for people instead of profits for insurance companies, then we have to reserve the right to oppose it."
This stance impelled Markos Moulitsas, founder and owner of the liberal Dailykos, to descend to Republican depths of invective. He wrote: "Dennis Kucinich has always been a little prick, and that hasn't changed."
What next, Dick Cheney telling us to "go f--k ourselves?"
The progressive talk radio host (yes, there are some) Thom Hartmann said, "Progressives attacking Dennis Kucinich is the circular firing squad on steroids." Spineless centrist Democrats denigrating Kucinich is old hat. But when the so-called liberal wing of the so-called party denounces him for standing alone against a bad health care bill, it's cowardice.
A public option amendment can be submitted on the floor. Courageous representatives would vote for it because it's the right thing to do; even Krugman acknowledges that the bill would be better if it had one. States' options to enact single payer if they chose could also be submitted as a floor amendment. It, too, would improve the bill.
These things can still be done. Dennis Kucinich bravely stands alone for them, even as he bravely stood alone against an immoral and unjustifiable war that has bled our treasury and our military.
I stand with him. If the local marchers next Sunday were to stand against rapacious corporations and for the American people in this fight, I'd stand with them, too.
Let the bloodletting begin. Not, unfortunately, between proponents of improved health care for all Americans and their opponents, who have yet to find a lie too onerous to use against it. No. Bloodletting among ourselves.
"I cannot bring myself to rally for the Senate bill to pass the House," I said. "It's the best we can get," said Lois, "and if it doesn't pass, the Democrats are dead meat for a long time to come."
"It's not the best we can get," I replied. "It's the best the insurance companies can get. Big difference."
And so it went.
Paul Krugman tells us it's not perfect, but it is responsible and should pass. He deflates three of the current most-repeated lies about the legislation. "Government control of one-sixth of the economy," is the hot one, and Krugman wastes little time exposing its falsehood. But he doesn't dwell on the main point:
Without a strong public option, the insurance companies are free to put consumers in an impossible vise: they will be required to buy insurance, but there is no restraint on the premiums the insurers can charge.
This is the heart of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's continuing opposition to the legislation as it stands. All 77 members of the Progressive Caucus signed a pledge not to vote for a health care bill without a public option; Kucinich is the only one who has not reneged.
"We need to keep the discussion going about alternatives," he told the progressive blogger Rob Kall, "because every discussion about alternatives puts the pressure in the direction of trying to come up with a better bill. And even at this late date, it would be a huge mistake to just look at the bill and call it a day. No, no no. We have to fight for the best bill we can get all the way down the line and if despite our best efforts, it still can not meet the test of providing care for people instead of profits for insurance companies, then we have to reserve the right to oppose it."
This stance impelled Markos Moulitsas, founder and owner of the liberal Dailykos, to descend to Republican depths of invective. He wrote: "Dennis Kucinich has always been a little prick, and that hasn't changed."
What next, Dick Cheney telling us to "go f--k ourselves?"
The progressive talk radio host (yes, there are some) Thom Hartmann said, "Progressives attacking Dennis Kucinich is the circular firing squad on steroids." Spineless centrist Democrats denigrating Kucinich is old hat. But when the so-called liberal wing of the so-called party denounces him for standing alone against a bad health care bill, it's cowardice.
A public option amendment can be submitted on the floor. Courageous representatives would vote for it because it's the right thing to do; even Krugman acknowledges that the bill would be better if it had one. States' options to enact single payer if they chose could also be submitted as a floor amendment. It, too, would improve the bill.
These things can still be done. Dennis Kucinich bravely stands alone for them, even as he bravely stood alone against an immoral and unjustifiable war that has bled our treasury and our military.
I stand with him. If the local marchers next Sunday were to stand against rapacious corporations and for the American people in this fight, I'd stand with them, too.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Since You Asked, Mr. Chief Justice. . . .
By MORT PERSKY
News Item, 3/09/2010: U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts complained in an address to University of Alabama law students yesterday about the role his justices play in attending the President's State of the Union address, but without referring to Mr. Obama's rebuke of the court's recent Citizens United decision, a rebuke memorably resented by his confrere, Justice Samuel Alito. Roberts said in Tuscaloosa that he's "not sure why the justices are there" for the speech, and claims that while he has no problem with having the court's decisions criticized, there is also the issue of "setting, circumstances and decorum" to be considered.
Oh, why not? Why don't we give Mr. Roberts some reasons (which he will almost certainly reject) for why his injustice-prone justices should be on hand for the President's State of the Union speech? Present only in part, that is, since three of his nine did not condescend to attend the event, which he says has "degenerated into a political pep rally." In other words, one-third of his court prefigured his complaint by treating this acknowledgment of their government's other two segments as beneath their dignity.
One reason, Mr. Roberts, for your attendance at the State of the Union is simply to absorb -- as reluctantly as Mr. Alito, if necessary -- the same sweet stuff you spend so much time dishing out during the rest of the year. A second is that during the months you and your colleagues spend unconfronted by the rest of your government or the public, you are allowed to appear more august and unreachable than ought to be the case, and a corrective now appears to be in the national interest.
And yet another reason, Mr. Roberts (let us tell him), is that this appears to be the only moment the year affords for you and your justices to be held semi-accountable for even one of your numerous and (why kid ourselves?) never-to-be-acknowledged injustices.
Aside from that, what exactly do you mean when you cite "an issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum" as a possible reason members of the court should perhaps not bother to be there? Does your "setting-circumstances-decorum" lament amount to more than snobbery about sharing one of our most important national rituals with mere mortals, despite the degree of honor with which it is regarded by most other attendees and millions of your fellow citizens watching it on television?
Is it, in short, your idea that members of The Supreme Court need never descend to a place where its paragons of dignity, judgment and learning sully themselves by sitting with other Americans not devoting themselves to full-time demonstrations of respect for your distinguished presence -- as may be required of them in your own halls of occasional justice, occasionally based on interpretations of the U.S. Constitution mixed with just-as-occasional gut feelings about the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, now wholly un-consultable due to their long-undisputed demise?
Mr. Roberts, if I hear your complaints in Tuscaloosa correctly, you and your robed colleagues are in dire need of being brought closer to the earth where your and their judgments eventually sprout good and bad fruit, where the legal decisions you make have real results in circumstances and venues that bear little resemblance to the hallowed halls where they are made.
For all their shortcomings, the President and Congress understand that their roles in governing by alleged consent of the governed makes them amply eligible for criticism, and yet your colleague Mr. Alito took umbrage at being criticized for a decision in which consent of the governed was all but ripped out of our government's heart -- a place where it has long lain bleeding. It's high time you and your court turned to more germane concerns about human dignity than your own relationship to the "setting, circumstances and decorum" of the State of the Union address. Being there nine strong, however, would be a good start on a project that badly needs starting.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Video You Won't See on TV
Every day I drive past a big steel building called an "event center" -- a big enclosed space where you can stage almost anything. Dances, exhibits, auction sales, celebrations, whatever. They once held a political rally there featuring Laura Bush, who pouted that it was an affront to host a First Lady in "a big barn."
For our kind of southwestern town, though, it's a right suitable place for public events.
As I approach the event center, I like to guess what's going on there. The number of vehicles parked in the adjoining lot and sometimes spilling over to other nearby parking areas (legal and otherwise) is the best clue. Time of year can be telling, too: holiday festivals, farm equipment exhibits, etc., are seasonal.
But there's one kind of event I don't have to guess about: a gun show. These things draw the biggest crowds, so that if you see people walking toward the center from illegally-parked vehicles half a mile or more away, you know they're going to a gun show.
Our state, New Mexico, has some of the weakest gun laws on the planet and its citizens seem to like it that way. Virtually anyone can own and carry a gun of virtually any type. Virtually the only restraints are that employers may legally prohibit firearms in the workplace or its parking areas, and colleges may legally prohibit firearms on their campuses. Guns are banned in some other public places, like schools and churches, as well.
Many of the public lands around my town are posted with polite requests that shooters restrain their trigger fingers except on the big, municipally-maintained shooting range west of town. There you can blast away with the weapon of your choice -- from bows to bazookas -- on a variety of ranges, with or without targets. Our very own war zone.
Yet one day when I set out to walk a popular hiking trail, there were three macho tontos blasting away with handguns at the trail head. "Excuse me," I said politely, "but we'd like to walk the trail." After what seemed like a very long pause, one of them shrugged and said, "OK." We walked with very tight sphincters until we were out of their range.
Evidence of trigger-happy binge shooting litters our desert public lands. In one particularly lovely piece of mesa-and-canyon wilderness, you can see from a mile or more away what looks like a pool of silver and gold glittering in the mid-day sun. Walk toward it and you begin to see that it's a huge pile of broken glass and metal shell casings. This less than 4 miles from the public shooting range.
As the third anniversary nears of the killings by a crazed shooter at Virginia Tech, a survivor of the massacre is conducting a one-man campaign against the kind of gun show that is so popular where I live. His name is Colin Goddard and he suffered four gunshot wounds at Virginia Tech.
Now he campaigns for sane gun-control laws, especially to curb the utterly unconstrained sales of weapons at gun shows. Funded by the Brady Campaign, he took concealed cameras on the road, visiting gunshows in eight cities in five states, seeking to demonstrate how easy it is for anyone to get any kind of lethal weapon.
Fox Fiction made a folk hero of another secret camera toting kid a while back. But you can bet the Foxies won't tell you about Colin Goddard's video.
If you want to see it, click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q&feature=channel
Update
SANTA FE, N.M., Mar. 10 -- (AP) -- People licensed for concealed handguns can take their weapons into restaurants serving beer and wine under a new state law.
Gov. Bill Richardson signed the measure on Wednesday. It takes effect in July. Even with the change, it will remain illegal to take a concealed weapons into a bar or a restaurant with a full liquor license. Richardson ordered the Department of Public Safety to change its licensing regulations for concealed handguns to prohibit people from drinking alcohol while carrying their concealed weapon. The governor wants the Legislature to make that part of state law.
For our kind of southwestern town, though, it's a right suitable place for public events.
As I approach the event center, I like to guess what's going on there. The number of vehicles parked in the adjoining lot and sometimes spilling over to other nearby parking areas (legal and otherwise) is the best clue. Time of year can be telling, too: holiday festivals, farm equipment exhibits, etc., are seasonal.
But there's one kind of event I don't have to guess about: a gun show. These things draw the biggest crowds, so that if you see people walking toward the center from illegally-parked vehicles half a mile or more away, you know they're going to a gun show.
Our state, New Mexico, has some of the weakest gun laws on the planet and its citizens seem to like it that way. Virtually anyone can own and carry a gun of virtually any type. Virtually the only restraints are that employers may legally prohibit firearms in the workplace or its parking areas, and colleges may legally prohibit firearms on their campuses. Guns are banned in some other public places, like schools and churches, as well.
Many of the public lands around my town are posted with polite requests that shooters restrain their trigger fingers except on the big, municipally-maintained shooting range west of town. There you can blast away with the weapon of your choice -- from bows to bazookas -- on a variety of ranges, with or without targets. Our very own war zone.
Yet one day when I set out to walk a popular hiking trail, there were three macho tontos blasting away with handguns at the trail head. "Excuse me," I said politely, "but we'd like to walk the trail." After what seemed like a very long pause, one of them shrugged and said, "OK." We walked with very tight sphincters until we were out of their range.
Evidence of trigger-happy binge shooting litters our desert public lands. In one particularly lovely piece of mesa-and-canyon wilderness, you can see from a mile or more away what looks like a pool of silver and gold glittering in the mid-day sun. Walk toward it and you begin to see that it's a huge pile of broken glass and metal shell casings. This less than 4 miles from the public shooting range.
As the third anniversary nears of the killings by a crazed shooter at Virginia Tech, a survivor of the massacre is conducting a one-man campaign against the kind of gun show that is so popular where I live. His name is Colin Goddard and he suffered four gunshot wounds at Virginia Tech.
Now he campaigns for sane gun-control laws, especially to curb the utterly unconstrained sales of weapons at gun shows. Funded by the Brady Campaign, he took concealed cameras on the road, visiting gunshows in eight cities in five states, seeking to demonstrate how easy it is for anyone to get any kind of lethal weapon.
Fox Fiction made a folk hero of another secret camera toting kid a while back. But you can bet the Foxies won't tell you about Colin Goddard's video.
If you want to see it, click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q&feature=channel
Update
SANTA FE, N.M., Mar. 10 -- (AP) -- People licensed for concealed handguns can take their weapons into restaurants serving beer and wine under a new state law.
Gov. Bill Richardson signed the measure on Wednesday. It takes effect in July. Even with the change, it will remain illegal to take a concealed weapons into a bar or a restaurant with a full liquor license. Richardson ordered the Department of Public Safety to change its licensing regulations for concealed handguns to prohibit people from drinking alcohol while carrying their concealed weapon. The governor wants the Legislature to make that part of state law.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Song of the Last Liberal
The Last Liberal labored down The Road, braced against the nuclear winter, his boy at his side.
In his gun were bullets made of soap; his empty cart held only hope, to reach the warmth before he died.
Softly, he sang:
A long, long time ago. . .
I can still remember
How those ideals could make me smile.
And I knew that if we had a chance
Folks would dance a progressive dance
And, maybe, they'd be happy for a while.
The year 2000 made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep.
I couldn't take one more step.
I well remember how we cried
When we read about his widowed bride.
And something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.
So bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
Did you write the book of love?
Did you keep your baseball glove?
Can you hear the trumpet blow?
Do you believe in human rights,
Your liberties and peaceful nights,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?
Well I know that we all loved him,
And thought his torch would never dim,
And saw the hole in his hand-made shoes.
Man, we dug those ryhthm and blues.
You might have been a broncin' buck
With a pink carnation and a pick-up truck.
Still you knew you was out of luck
The day the music died.
So we started singin',
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While Democrats played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The right-wing band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?
We started singing,
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn't play.
And in the streets the jobless screamed,
The hungry cried, and the schemers schemed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most,
Dennis, Al and Teddy's ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.
And they were singin',
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
--With thanks and apologies to Don McLean.
In his gun were bullets made of soap; his empty cart held only hope, to reach the warmth before he died.
Softly, he sang:
A long, long time ago. . .
I can still remember
How those ideals could make me smile.
And I knew that if we had a chance
Folks would dance a progressive dance
And, maybe, they'd be happy for a while.
The year 2000 made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep.
I couldn't take one more step.
I well remember how we cried
When we read about his widowed bride.
And something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.
So bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
Did you write the book of love?
Did you keep your baseball glove?
Can you hear the trumpet blow?
Do you believe in human rights,
Your liberties and peaceful nights,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?
Well I know that we all loved him,
And thought his torch would never dim,
And saw the hole in his hand-made shoes.
Man, we dug those ryhthm and blues.
You might have been a broncin' buck
With a pink carnation and a pick-up truck.
Still you knew you was out of luck
The day the music died.
So we started singin',
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While Democrats played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The right-wing band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?
We started singing,
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn't play.
And in the streets the jobless screamed,
The hungry cried, and the schemers schemed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most,
Dennis, Al and Teddy's ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.
And they were singin',
"bye bye Miss Liberal Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys was drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "this'll be the day that I die.
"This'll be the day that I die."
--With thanks and apologies to Don McLean.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Faithless to Our Fathers: R.I.P. Their Republic
According to legend, Benjamin Franklin was spotted emerging from the Continental Congress and a citizen asked, "Doctor, what have we got?" and Franklin replied, "A Republic if you can keep it."
We have failed to keep it. We have evolved into government in stasis yet heading toward anarchy en route to fascism. Two party government as it exists in the United States fails to meet James Madison's test for a republic: a representative democracy in which supreme power is held by the people through elected representatives of the whole population, and which has an elected president rather than a monarch.
Today, millions of Americans hold strong beliefs about social and political issues that are utterly unrepresented by either party. The Republicans have become a party of the far right, fraught with more dementia than typifies the far right parties in other attempts at democracy around the world. The Democratic party has become a center-right party, with a weak and spineless centrist core and a powerful right-wing minority that is closer to the Republican right than to its own center.
Progressive Democrats and independents voted for Barack Obama in either the belief or the hope that he would in fact lead a changing nation. When he used the internet in an unprecedented solicitation of citizen input into his new administration, those voters overwhelmingly told him they wanted single-payer health care, an end to Bush's wars, saner environmental policies, restoration of civil liberties and the rule of law, an end to corporate welfare and more effective government regulation of businesses that work against the public interest.
He ignored us. Instead of single-payer health care, he gave us a lame "public option" that he never fought for, and he began his "reform" by selling his soul to the pharmaceutical industry. Instead of ending the wars he extended them. Instead of strong legislation to stop climate-changing carbon emissions, water and air pollution and abuse of public lands, while creating clean energy jobs, he bargained away the enforcement powers of the original Clean Air Act. His party members in Congress were as complicit as Republicans in give-aways to dirty coal and Big Oil. Even his weak-tea legislation is being savaged by the right wing of his own party in vile alliance with the Republicans. In the latest betrayal of the principles he misled us into thinking he stood for, he has reversed positions and is said to be ready to resume the Bush policy of military kangaroo courts to try detainees long held illegally and immorally without charge or counsel, many of them having been repeatedly tortured as well. The list is endless.
It is time for us to learn from Europe. Multi-party democracy thrives there because it enables representation of people across a broad and often subtle spectrum of interests and needs. Hence England, for example, has room for parties dedicated solely to the interests of independence for Scotland, Wales and North Ireland; parties in shades of green, degrees of left-lean, conservators of traditional values, differing angles of rightward tilt, and a fluid center. There are, in short, real, functioning political parties to represent all the people.
Millions of Americans believe that progressivism, whether personified by Republican or Democratic leaders, has served this nation well. Progressives, after all, gave us suffrage, fair trade, anti-trust laws, the income tax, the Fair Deal, the New Deal, regulation of financial markets, Social Security, liberation of the political process from control by bosses and corrupt machines, labor unions, institutions dedicated to peace and human rights, Medicare, national parks and a vast, once-prosperous middle class.
The inheritors of such ideas have been effectively disenfranchised. Many of them voted for Obama simply because he was not Bush or McCain. Unless their interests are re-empowered by new parties, their polar opposites will take the country into fascism unopposed.
What's happening in Washington today is a travesty of democratic republicanism. We have not kept the priceless treasure we were given by Franklin, Madison and the other founders.
We desperately need ethical, economic, political and social reforms -- and we can't even pass health care reform.
We have failed to keep it. We have evolved into government in stasis yet heading toward anarchy en route to fascism. Two party government as it exists in the United States fails to meet James Madison's test for a republic: a representative democracy in which supreme power is held by the people through elected representatives of the whole population, and which has an elected president rather than a monarch.
Today, millions of Americans hold strong beliefs about social and political issues that are utterly unrepresented by either party. The Republicans have become a party of the far right, fraught with more dementia than typifies the far right parties in other attempts at democracy around the world. The Democratic party has become a center-right party, with a weak and spineless centrist core and a powerful right-wing minority that is closer to the Republican right than to its own center.
Progressive Democrats and independents voted for Barack Obama in either the belief or the hope that he would in fact lead a changing nation. When he used the internet in an unprecedented solicitation of citizen input into his new administration, those voters overwhelmingly told him they wanted single-payer health care, an end to Bush's wars, saner environmental policies, restoration of civil liberties and the rule of law, an end to corporate welfare and more effective government regulation of businesses that work against the public interest.
He ignored us. Instead of single-payer health care, he gave us a lame "public option" that he never fought for, and he began his "reform" by selling his soul to the pharmaceutical industry. Instead of ending the wars he extended them. Instead of strong legislation to stop climate-changing carbon emissions, water and air pollution and abuse of public lands, while creating clean energy jobs, he bargained away the enforcement powers of the original Clean Air Act. His party members in Congress were as complicit as Republicans in give-aways to dirty coal and Big Oil. Even his weak-tea legislation is being savaged by the right wing of his own party in vile alliance with the Republicans. In the latest betrayal of the principles he misled us into thinking he stood for, he has reversed positions and is said to be ready to resume the Bush policy of military kangaroo courts to try detainees long held illegally and immorally without charge or counsel, many of them having been repeatedly tortured as well. The list is endless.
It is time for us to learn from Europe. Multi-party democracy thrives there because it enables representation of people across a broad and often subtle spectrum of interests and needs. Hence England, for example, has room for parties dedicated solely to the interests of independence for Scotland, Wales and North Ireland; parties in shades of green, degrees of left-lean, conservators of traditional values, differing angles of rightward tilt, and a fluid center. There are, in short, real, functioning political parties to represent all the people.
Millions of Americans believe that progressivism, whether personified by Republican or Democratic leaders, has served this nation well. Progressives, after all, gave us suffrage, fair trade, anti-trust laws, the income tax, the Fair Deal, the New Deal, regulation of financial markets, Social Security, liberation of the political process from control by bosses and corrupt machines, labor unions, institutions dedicated to peace and human rights, Medicare, national parks and a vast, once-prosperous middle class.
The inheritors of such ideas have been effectively disenfranchised. Many of them voted for Obama simply because he was not Bush or McCain. Unless their interests are re-empowered by new parties, their polar opposites will take the country into fascism unopposed.
What's happening in Washington today is a travesty of democratic republicanism. We have not kept the priceless treasure we were given by Franklin, Madison and the other founders.
We desperately need ethical, economic, political and social reforms -- and we can't even pass health care reform.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Letter to Sen. Bunning, Hall of Famer
Hey, there, Jimbo, how's things? It's your old buddy, Chilly Stantz here. Remember me? Utility infielder for the Richmond, Indiana, Tigers back before you became rich and famous and I went back to pumping gas in Okemah, OK.
You was makin' maybe $150 a month, big money for class D back then, because you was a startin' pitcher. Me? I got the minor league minimum -- 75 lousy bucks -- because I was just a reserve infielder and occasional pinch-runner. You and a coupla other "prospects" -- that's what they called you back then, "prospects," cuz the scouts for the Big Club thought there was a "prospect" that you could make the big leagues -- you "prospects" had an attytood. Specially you, Jimbo.
There you'd be, on that rattly old bus, in the best seats, right behind The Skipper, and the rest of us, the non-prospects, we were just dirt. Remember, Jimbo? You didn't even know the first baseman's name, that quiet, bow-legged Pennsylvania Dutch boy from Reading, PA. "Hey you," you'd say, and ast him to fetch you a Coke, and you'd flip him two bits, and say, git one for yesself and keep the change, which was all of a nickel.
You moved on up the minor league ladder. I got released and went back to pumpin' gas. I had a bunch of jobs after that, and picked up a few extra dollars playin' semi-pro on the sandlots around Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle till I got too old. Only thing I ever had was good wheels and when I blew out a knee, nobody wanted me.
And y'all finally made the big show, with Dee-troit, and you pitched a perfect game one time, and you struck out three men in one inning on nine pitches -- now that there was really somethin'. An' you made the Hall of Fame, by gum, and gotcherself elected to Congress and all. You are one big deal.
So I gotta ask you, Jimbo, why you doin' this? Why you cuttin' off the unemployment checks and the Medicare payments? Why you doin' that, Jim? We ain't done nuthin' to you, us poor folks out here in what they useta call th' Dust Bowl.
My boy, he got laid off last year and when the unemployment ran out, he had to move in with me. I got a little old shack on a patch of ground outside of Arapaho, livin' on the Social Security. It's tough feedin' two people on the Social Security. And I got me a medical condition -- remember when "medical condition" jist meant a bad case of th' R.A.? Anyway the doc says he can't afford to treat me no more cuz they cut back the Medicare payments.
Why ya doin' this Jim? Why?
Yer ol' minor league teammate, Chilly.
* * *
* * *
From the Lexington Herald-Leader, Dec. 18, 2008: The non-profit Jim Bunning Foundation, which collects the money the former pitcher gets from autographing baseball memorabilia, has taken in more than $504,000, Senate and tax records show. Of that, Bunning has earned $180,000 in salary for working a reported one hour a week. By contrast, the foundation has given $136,435, or about one-fourth of its income, to churches and charitable groups around Northern Kentucky. The largest sums went to local Catholic churches Bunning has attended. Records show that Bunning is the foundation's sole employee and the only person to draw a paycheck from it.
You was makin' maybe $150 a month, big money for class D back then, because you was a startin' pitcher. Me? I got the minor league minimum -- 75 lousy bucks -- because I was just a reserve infielder and occasional pinch-runner. You and a coupla other "prospects" -- that's what they called you back then, "prospects," cuz the scouts for the Big Club thought there was a "prospect" that you could make the big leagues -- you "prospects" had an attytood. Specially you, Jimbo.
There you'd be, on that rattly old bus, in the best seats, right behind The Skipper, and the rest of us, the non-prospects, we were just dirt. Remember, Jimbo? You didn't even know the first baseman's name, that quiet, bow-legged Pennsylvania Dutch boy from Reading, PA. "Hey you," you'd say, and ast him to fetch you a Coke, and you'd flip him two bits, and say, git one for yesself and keep the change, which was all of a nickel.
You moved on up the minor league ladder. I got released and went back to pumpin' gas. I had a bunch of jobs after that, and picked up a few extra dollars playin' semi-pro on the sandlots around Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle till I got too old. Only thing I ever had was good wheels and when I blew out a knee, nobody wanted me.
And y'all finally made the big show, with Dee-troit, and you pitched a perfect game one time, and you struck out three men in one inning on nine pitches -- now that there was really somethin'. An' you made the Hall of Fame, by gum, and gotcherself elected to Congress and all. You are one big deal.
So I gotta ask you, Jimbo, why you doin' this? Why you cuttin' off the unemployment checks and the Medicare payments? Why you doin' that, Jim? We ain't done nuthin' to you, us poor folks out here in what they useta call th' Dust Bowl.
My boy, he got laid off last year and when the unemployment ran out, he had to move in with me. I got a little old shack on a patch of ground outside of Arapaho, livin' on the Social Security. It's tough feedin' two people on the Social Security. And I got me a medical condition -- remember when "medical condition" jist meant a bad case of th' R.A.? Anyway the doc says he can't afford to treat me no more cuz they cut back the Medicare payments.
Why ya doin' this Jim? Why?
Yer ol' minor league teammate, Chilly.
* * *
James Paul David Bunning made $96,513,000 playing major league baseball between 1955 and 1971. That does not include money from endorsements, personal appearances, baseball cards or memorabilia.
* * *
From the Lexington Herald-Leader, Dec. 18, 2008: The non-profit Jim Bunning Foundation, which collects the money the former pitcher gets from autographing baseball memorabilia, has taken in more than $504,000, Senate and tax records show. Of that, Bunning has earned $180,000 in salary for working a reported one hour a week. By contrast, the foundation has given $136,435, or about one-fourth of its income, to churches and charitable groups around Northern Kentucky. The largest sums went to local Catholic churches Bunning has attended. Records show that Bunning is the foundation's sole employee and the only person to draw a paycheck from it.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Earthquakes, Marsupials and Man
The Common Scold came by the other day to have coffee with The Better Half. I shuffled into the kitchen for a second cuppa and she spotted me."Why are you writing about silly animals," she Scolded, "when there is so much human tragedy in the world? Earthquakes in Haiti and Chile! Tsunamis. . ."
You know how it is when you haven't had your second cuppa. You ought to have a rejoinder, but there's nothing upstairs except the mental image of a big, steaming, heavenly-scented cuppa.
"Thanks for your concern," I think I mumbled and went off to sulk. Three or four glorious sips later, the fog began to lift.
Earthquakes are terrible, I imagined myself saying, but they are natural. Man did not create the Nazca tectonic plate, whose scraping against the South American tectonic plate 22 miles under the Pacific Ocean floor is what caused the Chilean quake. The plates have been down there a long time. They caused an even more powerful earthquake in Chile in 1960 that killed thousands. Nothing man knows how to do will prevent those plates from causing more tremors.
But as the planet's very climate changes around us, man is the cause. As the very air we breathe and water we drink does harm to living things, man is the cause. As species disappear from the planet we share with them, man is the cause. And so when I learn what's happening to the koala, and now the kangaroo, I ask myself over and over:
When will we ever learn?
We tend to think of Australia as one vast outback, unsullied by man, home to happy marsupials romping against the backdrop of Ayers Rock. Yet even there, the koala is dying off because its habitat is vanishing and an AIDS-like disease is infecting the population. (See previous post).
Now an Australian publication, The Age, reports that kangaroos are being euthanized because of "debilitating deformities caused by toxic emissions from nearby factories."
One recent day nearly 50 of the iconic animals had to be killed in the vicinity of Portland, Victoria because they were suffering from extremely painful bone and tooth deformities. Autopsies determined that the ailments were the direct result of breathing and ingesting fluoride emissions from nearby smelting operations.
For years, Australia's environmental protection agency had poo-poo'd concerns about the smelters by assuring everyone that the fluoride levels in the air and water were within "tolerance."
When will we ever learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)