My children came home yesterday with permission slips from their school that, when signed and returned, will allow students to opt out of listening to our president tell them stay in school and study hard.
I find it utterly incredible that there is even a controversy over this since it is a positive message that students need to hear again and again. And what better person to bring that message to them than the person who has so immensely benefited from education and who also happens to be the President of the United States?
So, listen to the president and watch the following video. Enjoy!
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Is Michael Steele's Position on Health Care Reform "Nuanced" or "Clear"? Answer: The New GOP Is the Old GOP.
I wrote an article on the Huffington Post in December of last year about the interview Steve Inskeep of NPR's All Things Considered conducted with Mike Duncan, the then chairman of GOP. In that article I observed the GOP was heralding Bobby Jindal and Ahn Cao as the saviors of the party because it was merely trying to repackage itself rather than to change fundamentally. When a caller called from Oregon to suggest the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious right, Duncan gave a typical talking point: "we are the party of the big tent." But everyone knew, including Mike Duncan through his silence, this was not just ignorance, but also a deep denial.
And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.
Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.
I am left scratching my head.
When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"
Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."
Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.
Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.
As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."
Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.
It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.
So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.
The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.
And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.
Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.
I am left scratching my head.
When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"
Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."
Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.
Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.
As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."
Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.
It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.
So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.
The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
How Can We Get Yogis To Be Activists?
In The Yoga Sutras of Pantajali, Sri Swami Satchidananda discusses cultivating attitudes toward four different kinds of people. As a practicing yogi, your utmost importance is placed in achieving peace. This peace is ultimately achieved by uniting with the Divine with the recognition that this Divine is within us as it is also within each and everyone of us.
Now the four different kinds of people: the "happy", the "unhappy," the "virtuous," and the "wicked." Swami Satchidananda urges friendliness and compassion to these respectively. In my mind, the first two have to do with with feelings. One feels happy or one feels unhappy. On the other hand, the virtuous and the wicked, in my opinion, have to do with morality. Unlike the ephemeral feelings of happiness or unhappiness, the virtuosity and wickedness seem to go beyond spontaneous human emotions. They seem to speak of human disposition, seated more deeply within human psyche. One cannot be virtuous one moment and not virtuous the next. Likewise, one cannot be wicked on moment and not wicked the next. For these last two Swami Satchidananda urges delight and disregard respectively. Regarding "wickedness," he writes that maybe if we leave them alone, they will come out of their wickedness. "Don't try to advise such people," he writes, "because wicked people seldom take advice. If you try to advise them you will lose your peace."
Because in trying to convert these people into good people, I will lose my peace, and my peace is of UTMOST important above all else, I am not to try to give them any help in how to stop being wicked. I understand Satchidananda to be saying this: if you find peace within yourself, and you radiate this peace, this peace will cause othersfollow your example and find their way to peace and, therefore, enlightenment. This is what it means to detach from the world, by detaching from the world, by this "involution," one sets a chain reaction of sorts. This is enlightenment. The more wickedness you see, the more inward you turn.
I have a problem with that. Since there will always be "wicked" people as these people are not to be advised, we also have to be willing to live with this fact. This seems to be extremely undemocratic and defeatist. Isn't democracy all about getting that majority to agree with you? How do you get someone to agree with you if you don't try to advise them?
I know lots of politically engaged people. I know lots of yogis. I also know that lots of yogis silently supported Barack Obama, but it was also a taboo to publicly acknowledge such favoritism. If, following Swami Satchidananda's words, yogis were to completely detach, to practice indifference toward the "wicked," where could yogis be activists? How could we even begin to convince people to turn to the yogic life style without trying to advise others? I know the standard answer would be to live by example, but what if some people just deliberately ignore forever?
Well, I guess Satchidananda is right. I am getting agitated and disturbed just by this mere thought. The question to ask yourself is, "what is more important? My own peace or the peace of others at the cost of my own?"
Now the four different kinds of people: the "happy", the "unhappy," the "virtuous," and the "wicked." Swami Satchidananda urges friendliness and compassion to these respectively. In my mind, the first two have to do with with feelings. One feels happy or one feels unhappy. On the other hand, the virtuous and the wicked, in my opinion, have to do with morality. Unlike the ephemeral feelings of happiness or unhappiness, the virtuosity and wickedness seem to go beyond spontaneous human emotions. They seem to speak of human disposition, seated more deeply within human psyche. One cannot be virtuous one moment and not virtuous the next. Likewise, one cannot be wicked on moment and not wicked the next. For these last two Swami Satchidananda urges delight and disregard respectively. Regarding "wickedness," he writes that maybe if we leave them alone, they will come out of their wickedness. "Don't try to advise such people," he writes, "because wicked people seldom take advice. If you try to advise them you will lose your peace."
Because in trying to convert these people into good people, I will lose my peace, and my peace is of UTMOST important above all else, I am not to try to give them any help in how to stop being wicked. I understand Satchidananda to be saying this: if you find peace within yourself, and you radiate this peace, this peace will cause othersfollow your example and find their way to peace and, therefore, enlightenment. This is what it means to detach from the world, by detaching from the world, by this "involution," one sets a chain reaction of sorts. This is enlightenment. The more wickedness you see, the more inward you turn.
I have a problem with that. Since there will always be "wicked" people as these people are not to be advised, we also have to be willing to live with this fact. This seems to be extremely undemocratic and defeatist. Isn't democracy all about getting that majority to agree with you? How do you get someone to agree with you if you don't try to advise them?
I know lots of politically engaged people. I know lots of yogis. I also know that lots of yogis silently supported Barack Obama, but it was also a taboo to publicly acknowledge such favoritism. If, following Swami Satchidananda's words, yogis were to completely detach, to practice indifference toward the "wicked," where could yogis be activists? How could we even begin to convince people to turn to the yogic life style without trying to advise others? I know the standard answer would be to live by example, but what if some people just deliberately ignore forever?
Well, I guess Satchidananda is right. I am getting agitated and disturbed just by this mere thought. The question to ask yourself is, "what is more important? My own peace or the peace of others at the cost of my own?"
Libertarians Will Never Be Free
After some time of observation and rumination over the different factions of political thought in this country, I have come to conclude this:
1) The Religious Right.
I vehemently disagree with them. However, I have respect for them because they believe in principles and act according to these principles. They have a strong moral compass and believe in a higher calling. That, in my opinion, though extremely naive and uninformed, is noble. I have to separate the religious fanatics from the religious right here. The religious fanatics, including those who kill in the name of God, or a god, or many gods, are crazy and belong in an institution.
2) The Liberals.
On the opposite end of the religious right, we have the liberals. I respect them for their compassion for fellow humans. They do see serving humanity as a higher calling not because it serves a greater god, but because it in itself is good. While the religious right draw their strength from a supposed higher authority, the liberals draw their strength in their faith in the progress of humanity. This, in my opinion, is noble.
3) The Libertarians.
Today's libertarians are in a league of their own and bear very little resemblance to the classic libertarianism of individual right. Today's libertarians have become all about money and taxes. These people pursue so-called liberty to such a degree that they will always be slave to this pursuit. Therefore, they will never be free. The young Ron Paul crowd is the good example of this kind of libertarians. These people have no higher calling other than the pursuit of so-called liberty, usually liberty from taxes, and have no compassion for others. The Libertarian Party's slogan: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom" -- as if one follow from the other? Hence, these people rank the lowest of all factions in my opinion in terms of moral rectitude (they have none), mental acuity (they really lack it), and compassion (only for themselves, which is, by definition, selfishness).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
We Have Placed Fellow Human Beings Below Dogs
When I was a teenager growing up Germany, we had a subscription to a magazine whose title I no longer remember. But I do remember one issue in particular, it was an issue on American white supremacy. Germans like to understand their own history through many different lenses, so an issue like this would not have been out of the ordinary.
This particular issue contained an interview with an unnamed white supremacist. The interviewer asked him if this professed white supremacist would stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car. Sure, the white supremacist said, just like he would help a dog.
That answer stuck with me for years.
Now, during this health care reform debate, which has been about everything else but really health care reform, another issue has come up--that of illegal immigration. The congressmen and women and senators are being asked again and again if illegal immigrants would also receive health care. Some of these people are even saying unimaginable things like, "they should all be sent back with bullet holes in their heads." Under no circumstances should illegal immigrants receive health care. No visits to ER, no visits with doctors. Send them straight to their home country without any medical attention. Can my fellow Americans really be saying these things?
Alas, some Americans have placed fellow human beings below dogs. That is very, very sad.
This particular issue contained an interview with an unnamed white supremacist. The interviewer asked him if this professed white supremacist would stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car. Sure, the white supremacist said, just like he would help a dog.
That answer stuck with me for years.
Now, during this health care reform debate, which has been about everything else but really health care reform, another issue has come up--that of illegal immigration. The congressmen and women and senators are being asked again and again if illegal immigrants would also receive health care. Some of these people are even saying unimaginable things like, "they should all be sent back with bullet holes in their heads." Under no circumstances should illegal immigrants receive health care. No visits to ER, no visits with doctors. Send them straight to their home country without any medical attention. Can my fellow Americans really be saying these things?
Alas, some Americans have placed fellow human beings below dogs. That is very, very sad.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Help Me Understand Why There Is Even a Debate on Healthcare Reform?
So, these are the typical arguments from those who oppose healthcare reform.
1. "The government is going to step between me and my doctor."
2. Or, "The government is going to kill my grandmother."
3. Or, "I don't want socialism." "What insurance do you have?" "I have Medicare." And if these people are on Medicare and know that it is a completely government run program, therefore socialistic, "Don't mess with Medicare. I don't want Medicare to run out of money because I need Medicare."
Here are my responses.
1. No conscionable doctor will divulge personal information about you. If you can't trust your doctor, and you don't trust the government, well, you can't trust anyone. If you are on a private health insurance policy, do you trust that insurance company, whose sole purpose is to make money, more than the government?
2. Now where did this come from? End of life counseling is not a death panel. If there is one, that would be the insurance companies that operate now who decide what procedures are covered and which one are not. I trust these people less than my government. The government is there if I need protection. Private companies, only if they are paid.
3. Medicare is a completely government run program that is there for those who would otherwise be rejected by ALL private health insurance companies. How would they ever get health insurance? If you are past 65, chances are that you have chronic ailments. Drugs to take everyday. You may supplement with private health insurance, but Medicare becomes your primary health insurance policy. So, don't be selfish and let others have that option too.
Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times that illustrates why we need healthcare reform in this country. And why there has to be a safety net for those who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot get healthcare. I don't see the difference in the need for medical attention between these people and those over 65.
A country trying to take care of its citizens who cannot take care of themselves is not socialism. It is good government.
1. "The government is going to step between me and my doctor."
2. Or, "The government is going to kill my grandmother."
3. Or, "I don't want socialism." "What insurance do you have?" "I have Medicare." And if these people are on Medicare and know that it is a completely government run program, therefore socialistic, "Don't mess with Medicare. I don't want Medicare to run out of money because I need Medicare."
Here are my responses.
1. No conscionable doctor will divulge personal information about you. If you can't trust your doctor, and you don't trust the government, well, you can't trust anyone. If you are on a private health insurance policy, do you trust that insurance company, whose sole purpose is to make money, more than the government?
2. Now where did this come from? End of life counseling is not a death panel. If there is one, that would be the insurance companies that operate now who decide what procedures are covered and which one are not. I trust these people less than my government. The government is there if I need protection. Private companies, only if they are paid.
3. Medicare is a completely government run program that is there for those who would otherwise be rejected by ALL private health insurance companies. How would they ever get health insurance? If you are past 65, chances are that you have chronic ailments. Drugs to take everyday. You may supplement with private health insurance, but Medicare becomes your primary health insurance policy. So, don't be selfish and let others have that option too.
Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times that illustrates why we need healthcare reform in this country. And why there has to be a safety net for those who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot get healthcare. I don't see the difference in the need for medical attention between these people and those over 65.
A country trying to take care of its citizens who cannot take care of themselves is not socialism. It is good government.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Palin Made Hatred Pretty
Where do I begin?
I hate the fact that a woman with a pretty face and an attractive figure made it pretty and attractive to hate. She gave hatred a pretty face, lent credence to hatred and made hatred acceptable, even attractive.
That is Palin's legacy. She brought hatred and ignorance to a whole new level.
There is no other way to describe her legacy than this simple fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
